Robinson v. Wade’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Texas law provides that a claim of former jeopardy may be raised at the inception of the prosecution under attack, but that the facts concerning the special Plea are determined in the course of the trial on the merits, See Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. art. 27.05 & 27.07 (1966 & Supp. 1981). The Plea is a mechanism for avoidance of reconviction, not retrial. In its limited function, it falls short of the protections extended to criminal defendants by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment, Baker v. Metcalfe, 633 F.2d 1198 , 1200 n. 3 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 974 , 101 S.Ct. 2055 , 68 L.Ed.2d 354 (1981), citing Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 661 , 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2041 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), as applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Lara · Apolinar v. State

2. “Attempts to raise new claims are governed by the rules of amendment, without regard to the characterization given the claims by the petitioner.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Brooks v. Tansy · Pelmer v. White

3. “Nor is the rationale of Burks inconsistent with application of the "prosecutorial overreaching" exception to bar retrial where the overreaching caused a tainted verdict to be set aside, rather than a tainted proceeding to be aborted. Burks' holding, resting on a perceived dichotomy between reversals for trial error and reversals for evidentiary insufficiency, indicated that, as the former hold no implication for the guilt or innocence of the defendant, they would raise no bar to further prosecution. That distinction does not necessarily hold true where trial error is attributable to intentional prosecutorial overreaching. The extreme tactics which constitute prosecutorial overreaching offend the double jeopardy clause at least in part because they unfairly deprive the defendant of possible acquittal, by heightening, in a manner condemned by law, the jury's perception of the defendant's guilt. Whether the tactic condemned is successful in its objective of securing a mistrial, or unsuccessful, but causes the return of a verdict of conviction, would seem to be of little significance in development of a law of preclusion designed to protect this interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Graves