Swenson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In a case in which the alleged conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of Indiana and another jurisdiction, a former prosecution in any other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same conduct in Indiana, if the former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or a conviction of the defendant or in an improper termination under section 3 of this chapter.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Amanda Dill v. State of Indiana · Smith v. State

2. “Although the Indiana and United States Constitutions provide no protection from double jeopardy as between “dual sovereigns,” Indiana has provided statutory protection against double jeopardy in such situations. See State v. Allen, 646 N.E.2d 965, 967-68 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. Indiana’s double jeopardy statute provides: In a case in which the alleged conduct constitutes an offense within the con current jurisdiction of Indiana and another jurisdiction, a former prosecution in any other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same conduct in Indiana, if the former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or a conviction of the defendant or in an improper termination under section 3 of this chapter. Ind.Code § 35^1-4-5 (West 2004). That is, a former conviction in any other jurisdiction bars subsequent prosecution by this State for the “same conduct.” Allen, 646 N.E.2d at 968 . Whether a prosecution is barred by double jeopardy is a question of law. Id. at 972 . This determination is made by considering the “overt acts” alleged in the sister jurisdiction’s charge in juxtaposition with the allegation in the State’s charge. See id. Because the prosecution here involves a former conviction in Kentucky, the double jeopardy question in this case is one of statutory construction rather than of constitutional dimension. See id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Justin Brewer v. State of Indiana

3. “Although the Indiana and United States Constitutions provide no protection from double jeopardy as between “dual sovereigns,” Indiana has provided statutory protection against double jeopardy in such situations.”

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