Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Saldana v. State (1993), Wehr v. State (1992)
29 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 18 U.S.C. § 1952
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A charging decision is not improper unless it results solely from the defendant's exercise of a protected legal right, rather than the prosecutor's normal assessment of the societal interest in prosecution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“substantial prejudice to [appellant's] rights to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Remmick v. State · Hogan v. State“We affirm. Harvey presents the following issues: 1. —Does the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit the State from prosecuting Appellant for conspiracy to commit kidnapping by relying upon evidence of his conduct which constitutes the substantive offense and served as the basis for the prior conviction of Appellant for kidnapping? 2. —Has the Appellant’s right to a speedy trial been denied by reason of his second prosecution? 3. —Has the Appellant been deprived of his rights to a public trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by having to defend himself against conspiracy charges to a jury of persons who were all aware of his prior conviction on the underlying substantive offenses from inflammatory pretrial publicity? 4. —Did the trial court commit reversible error by allowing statements made by the Appellant at the allocution portion of his sentencing hearing following his initial conviction to be used against him in the second prosecution in violation of Appellant’s constitutional rights to silence and due process?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harvey v. State
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.