McIntyre v. Trickey’s Empirical Analysis
938 F.2d 899 · 1991
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Teague v. Lane · Brown v. Ohio · Linkletter v. Walker
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] new rule placing a certain class of individuals beyond the State’s power to punish by death is analogous to a new rule placing certain conduct beyond the State’s power to punish at all. In both cases, the Constitution itself deprives the State of the power to impose a certain penalty, and the finality and comity concerns underlying Justice Harlan’s view of retroactivity [expressed in Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667 , 91 S.Ct. 1160 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971)] have little force.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Cook v. State · State v. Mohler“The testimony regarding the visit to the car dealership, together with the testimony concerning McIntyre’s operation of the car, proved the entirety of the tampering offense, and nearly the entirety of the stealing offense. The only new witness presented by the government at the stealing trial was Detective Schneedle, who testified regarding the photographic lineup and George’s identification of McIntyre. Even accepting that this testimony was necessary to help establish the first element of the stealing charge, the conduct proved at the first trial established the whole of the next two elements — the owner’s lack of consent and McIntyre’s purpose of withholding the ear permanently from the owner. Therefore, we conclude that McIntyre’s second prosecution violated the rule of Grady because the government, to establish essential elements of the stealing charge, proved conduct that constituted an offense for which McIntyre had already been prosecuted. See Grady, [ 495 U.S. at 520-22 ] 110 S.Ct. at 2093 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. McIntyre v. Caspari
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.