McCullough v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The State argues that this case materially differs from Pearce because this appellant was granted a new trial by the trial judge, not by an appellate court. Although that is a difference, it is not a distinction. The purpose of Pearce is to forbid vindictiveness against a defendant who successfully pursues post-conviction remedies. As quoted from Pearce in our original opinion, due process ‘requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he received after a new trial.’ 395 U.S. at 725 , 89 S.Ct. at 2080 . (Emphasis added.) It is immaterial whether the new trial is obtained by an order from the trial court or by a judgment of an appellate court; the principles stated in Pearce still must be observed on retrial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Castleberry v. State

2. “This case demonstrates the excessive scope of Pearce. The trial judge filed detailed and valid reasons for the heavier punishment and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the increased punishment resulted from vindictiveness. However, the reasons affirmatively supported by evidence are based on events occurring during or after the crime but before the first trial. Although those matters were not brought out at the first trial, they cannot be used [under Pearce ] to increase punishment because none occurred after the first trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Texas v. McCullough

3. ““Those reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding.” (Emphasis was from the original.) (Added emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State