Gilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 33 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Transaction' is a word of flexible meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilson v. Sirmons · HOLTZCLAW v. STATE

2. “To support the aggravator of continuing threat, the State must present evidence showing the defendant's behavior demonstrated a threat to society and a probability that threat would continue to exist in the future. In evaluating whether there is a probability that the defendant will commit acts of violence which will constitute a continuing threat to society, we have held that evidence of the callousness of the murder for which the defendant was convicted can be considered as supporting evidence, as well as prior criminal history and the facts of the murder for which the defendant was convicted. (internal quotations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. VASQUEZ v. STATE · Grissom v. State

3. “The death sentence for a non-trigger-man has also been upheld in other jurisdictions. In Florida v. White, 470 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1985), the defendant and two companions gained entrance to a home under a subterfuge. All three men were armed and wore masks. They tied up the people in the house and ransacked it. When one of the assailants’ mask fell from his face, the three assailants discussed killing the victims. The defendant verbally opposed any killing. The two other assailants shot the victims, killing six of the eight. The three assailants then gathered up their loot and returned to the defendant’s motel room where the loot was divided. The Su preme Court of Florida found that En-mund did not bar the imposition of the death penalty due to the defendant’s presence both before, during and after the murders; his full and active role in capturing, intimidating and guarding the victims; his failure to disassociate himself from either the robbery or the murder while verbally opposing any killing; and the lack of any evidence he acted under coercion. In Fairchild v. Norris, 21 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.1994), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held the evidence supported a finding that the defendant non-trigger-man was eligible for the death penalty. In that case, the defendant and an accomplice kidnapped, raped and killed a woman. The Court found the defendant fully participated in the kidnapping of the victim-followed her to her car, forced her inside at gunpoint, and took money from h”

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