State v. Styers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[b]ecause Styers had exhausted available appeals, his petition for certiorari had been denied, and the mandate had issued almost eight years before Ring was decided, his case was final, and he therefore is not entitled to have his case reconsidered in light of Ring "). II. ¶ 6 In conducting our independent review in pre- Ring cases like this, we examine "the trial court's findings of aggravation and mitigation and the propriety of the death sentence,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Styers v. Ryan · State of Arizona v. James Erin McKinney

2. “[w]hether the proffered mitigation is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency in light of the existing aggravation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Arizona v. James Erin McKinney · State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund

3. “(A) The supreme court shall review all death sentences. On review, the supreme court shall independently review the trial court's findings of aggravation and mitigation and the propriety of the death sentence. (B) If the supreme court determines that an error was made regarding a finding of aggravation or mitigation, the supreme court shall independently determine if the mitigation the supreme court finds is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency in light of the existing aggravation. If the supreme court finds that the mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency, the supreme court shall affirm the death sentence. If the supreme court finds that the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency, the supreme court shall im pose a life sentence pursuant to § 13-751, subsection A. (C) The independent review required by subsection A does not preclude the supreme court from remanding a case for further action if the trial court erroneously excluded evidence or if the appellate record does not adequately reflect the evidence presented.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Styers v. Ryan