19 So. 3d 277 - Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
60 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ring v. Arizona · Old Chief v. United States · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · 615 So. 2d 688 - Spencer v. State · 803 So. 2d 598 - Connor v. State
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish the CCP aggravator, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the killing was the product of cool and calm reflection and not an act prompted by emotional frenzy, panic, or a fit of rage (cold); (2) the defendant had a careful plan or prearranged design to commit murder before the fatal incident (calculated); (3) the defendant exhibited heightened premeditation (premeditated); and (4) the murder was committed with no pretext of legal or moral justification.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The comments at issue are the following: He used the gun on Friday. He shot a man with it. He certain[ly] doesn’t have any problems shooting people. He shot Carlos Coney. When you have a carjacking and a murder like this that’s senseless, it’s an irrational act, and you cannot for the life of you understand why that happened. You’ll never understand why T.J. Wright chose to shoot Carlos Coney or chose to shoot Felker and Green. It’s— it’s an irrational thing to do. Carlos Coney and Bennie Joiner both know the guy. He shoots them, a man that he knows. The man—the police come, he goes, “Yeah, who shot you?” “T.J. Wright shot me.” [[Image here]] You know, you can’t believe T.J. This guy wants you to believe that somebody that he has an acrimonious relationship with, they don’t get along, he’s driving by, sees the guy, has a gun in his car, and tells his buddy turn around and go back, I want to talk to him. Bull crap. He wanted to shoot him. That’s why he told [the driver] to turn around. That’s exactly what he did. He shot him. [[Image here]] But the second time, when you look at this map, after he dumped that car on Bolender Road and went and carjacked the Mexicans, he comes up to right there, and that’s where he flees. That’s where he shoots at Mr. Mendoza and the owner of the car who’s since died in a car accident. That’s where he shoots at him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[FN6] Wright testified, to the contrary, that after he arrived at the supermarket, he conducted a drug transaction and then visited other apartments in the area to sell more drugs. After making stops at various apartments, he began walking back to the Providence Reserve Apartments. While he was walking, Pitts drove up in a white vehicle. Pitts asked Wright if he wanted to drive, and as Wright walked to the driver’s side, he noticed blood on the vehicle. Wright suggested that they take the vehicle to an apartment to wash it. Wright testified that it was while they were driving to the apartment that the police chase occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.