Koski v. Samaha’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Blackledge v. Perry · Colten v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Rinaldi v. Yeager
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here the limits of due process dictate that the prosecutor not be allowed to create in an unknowing defendant's mind the impression that the prosecutor himself can insure imposition of a higher sentence upon appeal and thus place a defendant in fear of that consequence should she exercise a right vested in her by the State itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Koski v. Samaha“apprehension on a defendant's part of receiving a vindictively imposed penalty for the assertion of rights. The question, as the court saw it, was not whether the prosecutor actually had power to carry out his threats of imposing harsher sentences upon appeal, but whether Koski reasonably feared that he did. 8”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Koski v. Samaha“Anti-nuclear demonstrators appealing convictions on criminal trespass charges may end up with stiffer sentences by the time they leave Superior Court, Assistant County Attorney Peter McFarlane said yesterday.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Koski v. Samaha
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.