United States v. Mock’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.2d 336 · 1979
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably United States v. Mock (1979), United States v. Head (1982)
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Ashe v. Swenson · Abney v. United States · Di Bella v. United States · United States v. MacDonald
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Abney’s final factor is whether an important right will be lost irreparably if review must await final judgment. Important to the Abney Court’s affirmative answer to this query was that “[t]he prohibition [double jeopardy] is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy____” Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 326 , 90 S.Ct. 1757, 1759 , 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970) (emphasis in original). Collateral estoppel being an offshoot of double jeopardy, it must be admitted that their protective purposes are similar____ Where, however, collateral estoppel is being asserted only as a basis upon which to suppress evidence, it does not protect the defendant from being “put to risk;” the prosecution is not aborted, and he is protected only insofar as he does not have to relitigate factual issues on which he has already prevailed. Whether or not a defendant prevails on appeal, he must return to the district court for trial. Although we do not mean to minimize the importance of this protection for criminal defendants, it is not so pressing as to warrant the serious degree of intrusion into the trial process which would necessarily result from immediate appeals. While the courts have decided that the intrusion is warranted when the defendant asserts the right not to be brought to trial, in this context, the game is not worth the candle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he 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. Nor does he seek suppression of evidence which the Government plans to use in obtaining a conviction. Rather, he is contesting the very authority of the Government to hale him into court to face trial on the charge against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the application of collateral estoppel determines the manner in which the trial will proceed, its reach and run should be charted with the aid of a complete record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Lee
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.