State v. Joseph’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The effect of the articles [La. Code Crim.P. arts. 775 and 591] taken together is as follows: (1) Mistrials, without the consent of the defendant, are permitted under certain limited circumstances such as | smability of the jury to agree, physical impossibility to proceed, etc. (2) All other dismissals of the jury prior to verdict without the defendant’s consent will not be mistrials at all, even though the court may so label them, but will be illegal dismissals, and in such cases the principles of double jeopardy will come into operation. By ordering a mistrial that was not in compliance with Article 775 and was without the defendant’s consent, the trial judge impermissibly deprived the defendant of his right to have his trial completed by the jury before which he had been placed in jeopardy. Article 592 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure states in part that “[w]hen a defendant pleads not guilty and is tried by jury, jeopardy begins when the jury panel is sworn pursuant to Article 790.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 745 So. 2d 698 - State v. Stein · 734 So. 2d 685 - State v. Asprilla

2. “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy-of life or liberty for the same offense, except, when on his own | potion, a new trial, has been granted or judgment has been arrested, or where there has been a mistrial legally ordered under the provisions of Article 775 or ordered with the express consent of the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 701 So. 2d 1042 - State v. Givens · 634 So. 2d 965 - State v. DeGrate

3. “As a final point in Simpson this Court noted that the failure of the defendant to object to a mistrial which he had not sought and from which he was not benefited was inconsequential since once a mistrial is declared the trial is over. We stated clearly at 371 So.2d [at] 738: it [sic] is apparent that contemporaneous objection and reservation of a bill are not applicable to a plea of double jeopardy. As originally drafted, Article 841 did not require a bill to be reserved for “a ground for arrest of judgment under Article 859 ...,” one of which is double jeopardy. Moreover, it is clear that requiring a contemporaneous objection to an improperly granted mistrial does not advance the purpose of the rule, which is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged irregularity and to provide him with the opportunity to correct the problem during trial. State v. Dupre, 339 So.2d 10 (La.1976); State v. Charles, 326 So.2d 335 (La.1976). When a mistrial is declared, the jury is dismissed. (Compare the effect of granting a motion for acquittal, even when erroneously granted. State v. Hurst, 367 So.2d 1180 (La.1979). Unless the defendant anticipates the declaration of a mistrial, the trial ends without the opportunity to object. See United States v. Jorn, [ 400 U.S. 470 , 91 S.Ct. 547 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) ] supra. In addition to the above, a function of the contemporaneous objection rule is to facilitate appellate review of adverse lower court rulings. SinceJjgappellate review does no”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 So. 3d 944 - State v. Marlowe