State v. Draper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The description of the situation surrounding the criminal activity with which the defendant has been charged, including the defendant’s version of the criminal act and the defendant’s explanation for the act, the arresting officer’s version or report of the offense, where available, and the victim’s version, where relevant to the sentencing decision. (2) Any prior criminal record of the defendant. (3) The defendant’s social history, including family relationships, marital status, age, interests and activities. (4) The defendant’s educational background. (5) The defendant’s employment background, including any military record, and defendant’s present employment status and capabilities. (6) Residence history of the defendant. (7) Financial status of defendant. (8) Health of the defendant. (9) The defendant’s sense of values and outlook on life in general. (10) The presentence investigator’s analysis of the defendant’s condition. That analysis of the defendant’s condition contained in the presentence report should include a complete summary of the presen-tence investigator’s view of the psychological factors surrounding the commission of the crime or regarding the defendant individually which the investigator discovers. Where appropriate, the analysis should also include a specific recommendation regarding a psychological examination and a plan of rehabilitation.”

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

2. “The Court first considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice” to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 572 [ 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1191 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1, 17 ] (2005). Next, guided by “the standards elaborated by controlling precedents and by the Court’s own understanding and interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s test, history, meaning, and purpose,” Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 421 [ 128 S.Ct. 2641, 2650 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 540 ] (2008), the Court must determine in the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the punishment in question violates the Constitution. Simmons, 543 U.S. at 572 [125 S.Ct. at 1196-97, 161 L.Ed.2d at 23-24 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Azad Haji Abdullah

3. “[w]here the jury instructions, taken as a whole, correctly state the law and are not inconsistent, ... it will be assumed that the jury gave due consideration to the whole charge contained in all the instructions and was not mislead by any isolated portion thereof.”

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