United States v. Beckerman’s Empirical Analysis
516 F.2d 905 · 1975
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Abney v. United States (1977), United States of America v. Zolton Williams (2000)
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
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 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Green v. United States · Allen v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Wade v. Hunter
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although it is true that a pretrial order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds lacks the finality traditionally considered indispensable to appellate review, we conclude that such orders fall within the `small class of cases' that Cohen has placed beyond the confines of the final judgment rule. In the first place there can be no doubt that such orders constitute a complete, formal and, in the trial court, a final rejection of a criminal defendant's double jeopardy claim. There are simply no further steps that can be taken in the District Court to avoid the trial the defendant maintains is barred by the Fifth Amendment's guarantee. Hence, Cohen's threshold requirement of a fully consummated decision is satisfied. "Moreover, the very nature of a double jeopardy claim is such that it is collateral to, and separable from, the principal issue at the accused's impending criminal trial, i. e., whether or not the accused is guilty of the offense charged. In arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars his prosecution, the defendant makes no challenge whatsoever to the merits of the charge against him.. . . Rather, he is contesting the very authority of the Government to hale him into court to face trial on the charge against him. . . . "Finally, the rights conferred on a criminal accused by the Double Jeopardy Clause would be significantly undermined if appellate review of double jeopardy claims were postponed until after convic”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The issue of double jeopardy is collateral to the determination of whether the accused is innocent or guilty of the offense for which he has been indicted. The constitutional protection against being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense is a ‘valued right,’ Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 , 69 S. Ct. 834 , 93 L. Ed. 974 (1949), that is too important to be denied review. The protection against double jeopardy guards ‘not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy,’ United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 669 , 16 S. Ct. 1192, 1194 , 41 L. Ed. 300 (1896). The right will be invaded if an accused, who has properly invoked the Fifth Amendment protection against being twice put in jeopardy, is called upon to suffer the pain of two trials. Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187 , 78 S. Ct. 221 , 2 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1957). If an accused is to be afforded ‘the full protection of the double jeopardy clause, a final determination of whether jeopardy has attached to the previous trial must, where possible, be determined prior to any retrial.’ United States v. Lansdown, 460 F.2d 164, 171 (4th Cir. 1972). Contra, Gilmore v. United States, 264 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1959), cert denied, 359 U.S. 994 , 79 S. Ct. 1126 , 3 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1959). The reasoning of the opinion in Lansdown is persuasive here. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the predicate of the double jeopardy clause.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The appellant’s argument that the discharge of the jury was so hasty that he had no opportunity to make a considered objection, is not borne out by the record. Before the jury was dispersed, the appellant took the opportunity to request that the jury be reinstructed on the burden of proof.... Although the defense was not totally still, it was silent on the prospect of a mistrial and nothing was said to dispel the inference of accord.”
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.