Richie v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Proposition I: Petitioner was deprived of effective trial counsel. Proposition II: Appellate counsel’s failure to raise critical and meritorious issues on direct appeal violated Mr. Richie’s right to the effective assistance of counsel. Proposition III: This court erred in upholding Mr. Richie’s first-degree malice aforethought murder conviction in light of the fundamental errors created by the reversal of the felony-murder due to jurisdictional problems. Proposition TV: Mr. Richie was denied his right to due process to not stand trial when e was incompetent by the failure of the trial court to appoint an expert to assist the defense in determining Mr. Richie’s competence, and trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to investigate and raise the issue of Mr. Richie’s incompetency at trial especially considering that Mr. Richie is actually incompetent. Proposition V: Mr. Richie’s due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. Proposition VI: As a result of juror bias, Mr. Richie was denied his right to a trial and sentencing by an impartial jury in violation of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposition VII: Misrepresentations by members of the jury that would have supported a reason to challenge those jurors for cause denied Mr. Richie a trial before an impartial jury as required ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richie v. Sirmons

2. “In his fifth proposition, Richie claims the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory material to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Richie specifically contends the State failed to provide trial counsel with Mr. Waller’s initial statement in which he informed the police he was the last person to see Mrs. Launhardt alive. He further maintains the State failed to reveal that the police had “brutalized” Mr. Waller into “confessing” that Richie killed Mrs. Launhardt. Under the revised post-conviction procedure act, Richie must show this claim was not and could not have been raised on direct appeal and that it supports a conclusion either that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the errors or that the defendant is factually innocent. 22 O.Supp.1995, § 1089(C)(1) & (2). We have carefully reviewed this allegation, but are unable to conclude this claim could not have been raised on direct appeal. Mr. Waller’s statement either was known or could have been obtained prior to Richie’s direct appeal being filed. Moreover, we are unable to conclude this claim would have changed the outcome of the trial or that it supports the conclusion that Richie is factually innocent. Accordingly, this proposition is waived.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richie v. Sirmons

3. “Richie’s claim is specifically prohibited by 12 O.S.1991, § 2606(B) which states in pertinent part: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror shall not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or as to the effect of anything upon his or another juror’s mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes during deliberations. [emphasis added] See also Hall v. State, 1988 OK CR 174 , 762 P.2d 264, 266-67 ; Weatherly v. State, 1987 OK CR 28 , 738 P.2d 1331, 1334-35 ; Wacoche v. State, 1982 OK CR 55 , 644 P.2d 568, 572-73 . Therefore, this allegation of error is denied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richie v. Sirmons