United States v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he double jeopardy concerns that preclude the government from having a second opportunity to build a case against a defendant when it failed to do so the first time are not present here. Any insufficiency in the proof was caused by the subsequent change in law ..., not the government's failure to muster evidence. Similar reasoning to that in Lockhart [ v. Nelson , 488 U.S. 33 , 34, 42, 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988) ], applies here. The government presented its evidence under the wrong standard, i.e., it presented evidence correctly believing, based on the law at the time, that it was enough to prove the images "appeared" to depict minors. If the evidence in the record is insufficient to support a verdict under [a later-decided case], it is not because of the government's failure of proof but because of the changes brought by [the later-decided case].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 346 Ga. App. 340 - LEVIN v. the STATE.

2. “[o]ther circuits considering the issue agree that where a reviewing court determines that the evidence presented at trial has been rendered insufficient only by a post-trial change in law, double jeopardy concerns do not preclude the government from retrying the defendant. E.g., United States v. Robison , 505 F.3d [at 1225] ; United States v. Wacker , 72 F.3d 1453 , 1465 (10th Cir. 1996) ; United States v. Weems , 49 F.3d 528 , 531 (9th Cir. 1995) ; see also United States v. Bruno , 661 F.3d 733 , 742-43 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2011) (facing a similar issue and collecting cases, including [ United States v .] Ellyson [ 326 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2003) ], but deciding the case on other grounds); United States v. Green , 139 F.3d 1002 , 1004 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding that vacatur of a judgment based on a post-judgment change in law is "akin to a reversal for trial error").”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 346 Ga. App. 340 - LEVIN v. the STATE.