998 So. 2d 278 - State v. Tassin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant bears the burden of proving prosecutorial vindictiveness. State v. Darensbourg, 06-572 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/06) , 948 So.2d 1128 . In determining whether there has been prosecutorial vindictiveness, the court examines the state’s actions in the context of the entire proceeding. Id. If, to a Unreasonable mind, the filing of the habitual offender bill can only be explained by a desire to deter or punish the defendant’s exercise of legal rights, the events in the case will create a presumption of vindictiveness. Id. The district attorney has the discretionary power to charge a defendant under the habitual offender law just as he has the initial unlimited power to prosecute “whom, when, and how” he chooses. State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1279 (La.1993); LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 61. The district attor ney’s use of the habitual offender laws “provides an ancillary sentencing factor designed to serve important and legitimate societal purposes.” State v. Orange [State ex rel. State v. Orange ], 02-711 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/11/03) , 845 So.2d 570, 578 , writs denied, 03-1352 (La.5/21/04), 874 So.2d 161 , and 03-2195 (La.7/2/04), 877 So.2d 137 . The use of the habitual offender law alone does not create a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness. Id. State v. Dauzart, 07-15, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/15/07), 960 So.2d 1079, 1084-85 . [[Image here]] The Defendant argues that in either case, the choice to seek enhancement against him when it has not been done to other habitual offe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 92 So. 3d 975 - State v. Leger