State v. Joubert’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably State v. Palmer (1986), State v. Reynolds (1990)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 38 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Gardner v. Florida · Proffitt v. Florida · Godfrey v. Georgia · Wingo v. Wedding · 283 So. 2d 1 - State v. Dixon
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The offender was previously convicted of another murder or a crime involving the use or threat of violence to the person, or has a substantial history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity; (b) The murder was committed in an apparent effort to conceal the commission of a crime, or to conceal the identity of the perpetrator of a crime; (c) The murder was committed for hire, or for pecuniary gain, or the defendant hired another to commit the murder for the defendant; (d) The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or manifested exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence; (e) At the time the murder was committed, the offender also committed another murder; (f) The offender knowingly created a risk of death to at least several persons; (g) The victim was a law enforcement officer or a public servant having custody of the offender or another; or (h) The crime was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of the laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Victor“describes two separate disjunctive circumstances which may operate together or independently of one another. [Citations omitted.] The first circumstance is that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. We have said this circumstance includes a “ ‘pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim’ and . . . cases where torture, sadism, or the imposition of extreme suffering exists.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Ryan“[I]f a State wishes to authorize capital punishment it has a constitutional responsibility to tailor and apply its law in a manner that avoids the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Moore v. Clarke
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.