State v. Creech’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 3 district · 64 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Only a few years ago, the United States Supreme Court made new "rules" concerning imposition of the death penalty for serious crimes. So that we conformed with this U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the federal Constitution, the Idaho Legislature enacted in 1973 our present death penalty Sections 18-4003 and 18-4004, Idaho Code. Then, last year, the United States Supreme Court again changed the rules relating to capital punishment — after many states, like Idaho, had acted in response to its previous decision. The Court, in five cases, set forth new, more definitive rules concerning sentencing where the death penalty was sought to be imposed. The purpose of this bill is to codify into Idaho law these present requirements imposed on the states by these most recent United States Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment so that we will conform with this latest expression of the law.”

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Arave v. Creech · State v. Moeller

2. “There is some evidence in the record indicating that Creech had been enticed by other inmates to 'do Jensen in,' but the district judge did not decide or find that the murder had been performed on contract or by plan.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arave v. Creech · Creech v. Arave

3. “"1) the guilty plea in this case was accepted conditionally because the psychological examinations were not reported or finished by the time of the guilty plea ...; "2) At the time of his guilty plea the appellant believed he had no defenses to the charge and he knowingly waived no defenses; "3) appellant now realizes that the unprovoked, deadly-force attack on him by David Jensen negates the malice needed to make a killing murder; "4) appellant never knowingly or intentionally waived the right to take his case to a jury authorized by law to convict him of manslaughter, a lesser included offense of murder; "5) appellant now realizes that the psychological testing gives him a legal defense to the charge in that as Mr. Creech exceeded the lawful bounds of self-defense he did so because, due to mental disease or defect, he lost capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law; "6) at the time of his plea the appellant had no idea he had an insanity defense to the charge and he did not knowingly, intelligently waive this defense; "7) Tom Creech believed that his life would be in jeopardy from the administration of the prison if he revealed the causes and events which led to Jensen's attack upon him; "8) threats were made upon the lives of appellant's family after his not guilty plea which pressured him to waive his trial and plead guilty; "9) defendant's guilty plea was caused by improper medical care: "(a) during the per”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Creech