Cornero v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.2d 69 · 1931
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Wade v. Hunter (1949), Illinois v. Somerville (1973)
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Ex parte Lange · United States v. Josef Perez · Logan v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Edward Dreyer v. People of the State of Illinois
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The fact is that, when the district attorney impaneled the jury without first ascertaining whether or not his witnesses were present, he took a chance.... The situation presented is simply one where the district attorney entered upon the trial of the case without sufficient evidence to convict. This does not take the case out of the rule with reference to double jeopardy. There is no difference in principle between a discovery by the district attorney immediately after the jury was impaneled that his evidence was insufficient and a discovery after he had called some or all of his witnesses.'"”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"As to the question raised by the plea of former jeopardy, it is sufficiently answered by citing U. S. v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 [ 22 U.S. 579 , 6 L.Ed. 165 ]; Simmons v. U. S., 142 U.S. 148 , 12 S. Ct. 171 [ 35 L.Ed. 968 ]; and Logan v. U. S., 144 U.S. 263 , 12 S.Ct. 617 [ 36 L.Ed. 429 ]. Thoses cases clearly establish the law of this court, that courts of justice are invested with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated, and to order a trial by another jury; and that the defendant is not thereby twice put in jeopardy, within the meaning of the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Sjound discretion ... is that discretion of the trial court involved in the determination of when and after how long a deliberation the jury should be discharged, for the reason that the accused is entitled to have the jury given a reasonable time to arrive at a verdict before a mistrial should be declared and the jury discharged.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.