United States v. Coker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ajfter carefully examining Cobb , we conclude that the dual sovereignty doctrine applies for the purposes of defining what constitutes the same offense in the Sixth Amendment right to counsel context. In doing so, we reject the reasoning of the Second Circuit in Mills and adopt the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in [United States v.] Avants [ 278 F.3d 510 (5th Cir.2002) ]. The court in Mills stated that “[njowhere in Cobb , either explicitly or by imputation, is there support for a dual sovereignty exception” in the Sixth Amendment right to counsel context. Mills, 412 F.3d at 330 . This statement, in our view, does not give adequate consideration to the Court’s statement that it saw “no constitutional difference between the meaning of the term ‘offense’ in the contexts of double jeopardy and of the right to counsel.” Cobb, 532 U.S. at 173 , 121 S.Ct. 1335 , 149 L.Ed.2d 321 . If the Court intended to incorporate only the Blockburger test into its Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, then its statement in Cobb would make no sense, as there would be a difference in the meaning of the term “offense” in the contexts of double jeopardy and of the right to counsel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Burgest · United States v. Ricky Jackson

2. “Nowhere in Cobb , either explicitly or by imputation, is there support for a dual sovereignty exception to its holding that when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it extends to offenses not yet charged that would be considered the same offense under Blockburger . Cobb makes clear that Sixth Amendment violations are offense specific and, consequently, evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment is not admissible in subsequent prosecutions for the "same offense" as defined by Blockburger. The fact that Cobb appropriates the Blockburger test, applied initially in the double jeopardy context, does not demonstrate that Cobb incorporates the dual sovereignty doctrine: The test is used simply to define identity of offenses. Where, as here, the same conduct supports a federal or a state prosecution, a dual sovereignty exception would permit one sovereign to question a defendant whose right to counsel had attached, to do so in the absence of counsel and then to share the information with the other sovereign without fear of suppression. We easily conclude that Cobb was intended to prevent such a result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Turner v. United States

3. “In other words, [in the context of an alleged Sixth Amendment violation,] the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Coker would have been convicted even if his confession had not been admitted into evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Orlandella