212 F. Supp. 2d 382 - Hackett v. Price’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “prong on the basis that all the jurors agreed, unanimously, that there was no mitigating circumstance that was commonly agreed upon by all twelve jurors. 171 . . . 172 The ambiguity of the language of the sentencing statute, the additional jury instructions, and the verdict form all contribute to the conclusion that it was reasonably likely the jury believed it must find mitigating circumstances unanimously before considering them, and that it could reach a verdict of death under the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hackett v. Price

2. “that was commonly agreed upon by all twelve jurors. Notwithstanding the fact that two of the jurors believed that a mitigating factor existed, because of the jury's erroneous interpretation of the instructions with respect to the requirement of unanimity, the result would be a sentence of death. This scenario even creates the possibility of a death verdict under the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hackett v. Price

3. “misconstrue[d] the court's task in examining for Mills error by focusing on the meaning of the statute rather than on the issue of jury confusion. As Mills instructs, it is the danger of jury misinterpretation of the statutory scheme, rather than the existence of a constitutional interpretation of the statute by the courts, that creates the Mills problem.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hackett v. Price