State v. Loftin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

109 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “ibid., we required that in future cases, if the court, based on the evidence presented believes that there is a realistic likelihood that it will impose a sentence to be served consecutively to any of defendant's prior sentences, in the event the jury does not return a death sentence, the jury should be so informed. [ Id. at 372, 680 A. 2d 677 .] Second, Martini's attorney”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Cooper · State v. Nelson

2. “Generally, we ask a Jury only if a Defendant has been found guilty of a crime. We do not inquire if the Jury sees a Defendant whom they convict as a principal or an accomplice or a co-conspirator. The practice is different when, as here, one of the charges is potentially punishable by death. If the jury convicts Mr. Morton or convicts any defendant of a murder in such a case, I must then ask if the Jury unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt finds two things: one, that the defendant committed a purposeful or knowing murder; and two, that the defendant committed the fatal act by his own conduct. It is permissible for a jury to find a person guilty of a crime if some jurors see the person as the principal and others see him as an accomplice or a co-conspirator. What is essential is that each Juror be satisfied in his or her own mind that all the elements necessary to establish guilt under the theory upon which the Juror convicts has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction of murder under these circumstances is perfectly proper. Under our law, a person is only capital eligible if the Jury finds unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt both that the Defendant committed a knowing and purposeful murder, and that the Defendant committed the murder by his own conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Koskovich · State v. Morton

3. “[t]he evidence relating to mitigating factors should be fully discussed by the jury. To the extent reasonably possible you should, by reason, attempt to reach agreement on the question whether a particular mitigating factor does or does not exist. However, the law does not require that you agree unanimously with respect to the finding of a mitigating factor. Furthermore each juror must individually determine whether or not each mitigating factor exists, and each juror must individually decide whether the aggravating factor or factors unanimously found outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt the mitigating factor or factors that the jurors or a single juror has found to be present. If after a full discussion you find that you are not unanimous on the existence or non existence of a mitigating factor, you’ll record your last vote on that question on the verdict form in boxes, the number of yes or no votes. However, remember that whether a mitigating factor exists is not decided by a majority vote. Even if one juror finds a mitigating factor which in that juror’s mind is not outweighed by a reasonable doubt by the aggravating factor or factors, then the jury may not sentence the defendant to death. [ (Emphasis added).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Cooper · State v. Martini