United States v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.2d 1124 · 1973
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Bolden (1977), Wilbert Herring v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (1974)
33 federal appellate · 27 state decisions — followed in 15 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · Terry v. Ohio · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Green v. United States
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court there upheld a second-trial conviction where the first jury had been dismissed at the insistence of the state, over defendant’s objection, following the discovery of a defect in the drafting of the indictment. Somerville stands for the proposition that mistrial which is the result of official error not involving ‘prosecutorial manipulation’, 410 U.S. at 464 , 93 S.Ct. at 1070 , does not bar retrial even where the defendant does not consent to the termination of the first trial short of judgment. In the present case the defendant moved for a mistrial, and since this motion was not the product of prosecutorial manipulation or overreaching, we find no constitutional barrier to retrial and conviction.” United States v. Beasley, supra, 479 F.2d 1124 at 1127 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Allesi““It would be offensive to the fundamental constitutional guarantee against successive, oppressive prosecutions, if the government, at a trial in which its case is going badly, could by gross misconduct precipitate a mistrial and thereby gain ‘another, more favorable opportunity to convict the accused.’ ... At the same time, Wade v. Hunter, supra, makes it clear that when a mistrial results from prosecutorial error which does not amount to gross negligence or intentional misconduct, the state is not barred from reprosecuting the defendant.” (Emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“counsel likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Estelle
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.