885 So. 2d 714 - State v. Ingram’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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “| i2The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause protects against successive prosecutions following acquittal or conviction, as well as multiple punishments for the same offense. See also, LSA-Const. art. I, § 15; La.C.Cr.P. art. 591 et seq. The collateral estoppel component of the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the state from relitigating an issue of ultimate fact that has been determined by a valid and final judgment. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 , 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); State v. Cotton, 00-0850, pp. 5-6 (La.1/29/01), 778 So.2d 569, 574 , reh’g granted in part, on other grounds, 00-0850 (La.4/20/01), 787 So.2d 278 . A fact is considered “ultimate” if it is necessary to a determination of the defendant’s criminal liability. State v. Miller, 571 So.2d 603, 607 (La.1990). Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of only those facts necessarily determined in the first trial. United States v. Brackett, 113 F.3d 1396, 1398 (5th Cir.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 934 , 118 S.Ct. 341, 139 L.Ed.2d 265 (1997). Where a fact is not necessarily determined in a previous trial, the state is not barred from reexamining the issue. Id. Accordingly, the first step in resolving a collateral estoppel claim is to discern which facts were “necessarily determined” in the first trial. Id. The courts have placed the burden “on the defendant to demonstrate that the issue whose relitigation he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in the first proceeding.” Dowling v. Unite”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 So. 3d 747 - State v. Langley