Lambert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 16 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the jury should not hear evidence of the crimes for which [the defendant] was convicted, unless particular facts of the case are relevant to the issue of mental retardation. Any such evidence should be narrowly confined to that issue”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ochoa v. Workman · Smith v. State

2. “You are advised that a person is “mentally retarded” if he or she functions at a significantly sub-average intellectual level that substantially limits his or her ability to understand and process information, to communicate, to learn from experience or mistakes, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reaction of others. Intelligence quotients are one of the many factors that may be considered, but are not alone determinative. In reaching your decision, you must determine: 1. Is the Defendant a person who is mentally retarded as defined in this instruction? 2. Was the mental retardation present and known before the Defendant was eighteen (18) years of age? 3. Does the Defendant have significant limitations in adaptive functions in at least two of the following skill areas: communication; self care; social/interpersonal skills; home living; self-direction; academics; health and safety; use of community resources; and work? questions is no, you must so indicate on your verdict form.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 693 F. Supp. 2d 1280 - Hooks v. Workman