State v. HEDGSPETH’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On appeal, Hedgspeth complains that as a result of this “continuance” the state was given additional time to prepare for trial and that he was entitled to have his case tried before the jurors already selected. The right to have one’s trial completed by a particular tribunal is within the protection of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, since it is that “right” that lies at the foundation of the rule that jeopardy attaches when the whole jury is empaneled and | S| sworn. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 , 98 S.Ct. 2156 , 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). However, in the instant case, that “right” had not yet attached when the trial court granted the state’s motion and dismissed the partial jury.... [[Image here]] Moreover, the public has an interest in affording the state one full and fair opportunity to present its evidence to an impartial jury. See Illinois v. Somer-ville, 410 U.S. 458 , 93 S.Ct. 1066 , 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1973). The right to have one’s case tried before the jurors already selected cannot serve as a barrier to full and fair prosecution of the defendant under these particular circumstances. See State v. Marshall, 410 So.2d 1116 (La.1982). In the case at hand, since the jury was not sworn pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 790, nothing prevents the state from pursuing a full and fair prosecution. Further, we find that the record does not support, nor are we persuaded, that the additional preparation time afforded the state warrants reversal. Had the state moved for”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 129 So. 3d 554 - State v. Davis · 128 So. 3d 1060 - State v. Saltzman

2. “| snHere, in order to determine whether the grant of the motion for continuance was proper, we must first determine if the initial trial had “commenced.” Louisiana C. Cr. P. art. 761 provides that, “a jury trial commences when the first prospective juror is called for examination.” Since it is undisputed that 10 of the 12 prospective jurors had been selected, pursuant to articles 761 and 708 the trial had already commenced. Thus, the trial court was without authority to grant a “continuance,” and in effect the action was an illegal dismissal. However, Hedgspeth must show he has been prejudiced by this action, as the dismissal alone does not constitute reversible error. State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.05/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 129 So. 3d 554 - State v. Davis · 128 So. 3d 1060 - State v. Saltzman