State v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 11 district · 208 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 274 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is no doubt that the double jeopardy clause applies to sentencing as well as conviction, Ex Parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 , 85 U.S. 163 , 21 L.Ed. 872 (1873), and defendant cites several cases, two from California, People v. Harvey, 76 Cal. App.3d 441 , 142 Cal.Rptr. 887 (1978), and People v. Payne, 75 Cal.App.3d 601 , 142 Cal.Rptr. 320 (1977), as well as the South Carolina case of State v. Rodgers [ 270 S.C. 285 ], 242 S.E.2d 215 (S.C.1978) in support of his position. All three of these cases are distinguishable. In each of those cases, the defendants, after having been sentenced to death, had their sentences reduced to life imprisonment. After they had commenced to serve the life sentences, the state sought to have them resentenced under legislation enacted after the crime and the reversal. Thus, after the life sentences were at least partially served, the state attempted to subject them to another different and higher punishment.... We agree with the California court, but these cases are clearly distinguishable and do not apply to the case at bar. The defendant in the instant case never served his sentence (of death). His death sentence was not reduced to life imprisonment but was merely set aside pending resentencing. We find no violation of the double jeopardy clause in the instant case. See also North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knapp v. Cardwell

2. “1. Was defendant’s motion to preclude application of the death penalty improperly denied? 2. Should defendant have been allowed to reargue aggravating circumstances at resentencing? 3. Was defendant’s Petition for Post Conviction Relief improperly denied? 4. Were there mitigating circumstances sufficient to call for leniency? 5. Is the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution? 6. Was the death penalty excessive in this case? 7. Is A.R.S. § 13-454 (now § 13-703) violative of the equal protection' and due process provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions?”

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

3. “We believe there is sufficient evidence in the legislative history of the enactment of this statute as well as the statute itself from which it is apparent that had the legislature anticipated that the legislation on mitigating factors would be found unconstitutional they would still have enacted the rest of the statute. Indeed, there is more than ample indication that the legislature intended a death penalty statute and were prepared to write one that complied with the United States constitutional guidelines.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knapp v. Cardwell