Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 491 F.3d 976 - Brazzel v. Washington

Brazzel v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis

491 F.3d 976 · 2007

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2026

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

130200720102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Green v. United States · Arizona v. Washington · Ball v. United States · United States v. Josef Perez · Richardson 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “But the result in this case need not rest alone on the assumption, which we believe legitimate, that the jury for one reason or another acquitted Green of murder in the first degree. For here, the jury was dismissed without returning any express verdict on that charge and without Green's consent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Genuine deadlock is fundamentally different from a situation in which jurors are instructed that if they `cannot agree,' they may compromise by convicting of a lesser alternative crime, and they then elect to do so without reporting any splits or divisions when asked about their unanimity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the prosecutor must shoulder the burden of justifying the mistrial if he is to avoid the double jeopardy bar. His burden is a heavy one. The prosecutor must demonstrate `manifest necessity' for any mistrial declared over the objection of the defendant.”
    1 later decision 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.