United States v. Cavanaugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “); United States v. Grey Bear, 863 F.2d 572 (8th Cir.1988) (en banc) (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Richard John Lafuente, Also Known as Ricky Lafuente · United States of America v. Richard John Lafuente

2. “We find that the government at trial abandoned any theory that there were two separate and distinct criminal acts The government presented this case as one in which the alleged assaults before the run-over were an integral part of the actual murder. It is clear that this was the only way the government could establish most of the defendants’ culpability for the murder.... Having concluded that the prosecution’s deliberate action resulted in the trial terminating without a verdict on the assault charge, we must determine whether the principles of double jeopardy now bar the government from retrying the defendants on that count. We conclude that double jeopardy bars retrial under these circumstances. [[Image here]] ... [T]he failure of the original jury to return a verdict on the assault count and the reasons it did not[] are the critical factors barring retrial. [[Image here]] ... In this case, the trial ended without a factual determination of guilt or innocence on the assault charge, and we look closely at precisely why the trial terminated without the jury reaching a verdict on the charge. Had the trial terminated because of a deliberate election by the defendant, double jeopardy would not bar retrial. See United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 96 , 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2196-97 , 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). In contrast, when the trial terminates mthout a determination of guilt or innocence on a charge as a result of a deliberate, tactical decision by the prosecution, we examine whether t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Quitog

3. “[i]t is well established [that] if an appellate court deems the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support a jury’s guilty verdict on a greater offense but finds the evidence sufficient to support a conviction on a lesser included offense, it may enter a judgment of conviction on that lesser included offense. See, e.g., United States v. Franklin, 728 F.2d 994, 1000-01 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Ellsworth, 647 F.2d 957, 965 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 944 , 102 S.Ct. 2008 , 72 L.Ed.2d 465 (1982); DeMarrias v. United States, 453 F.2d 211, 215 (8th Cir.1972); see also Morris v. Mathews, 475 U.S. 237, 247 , 106 S.Ct. 1032, 1038 , 89 L.Ed.2d 187 (1986)[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Malufau