State v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 76 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]his court has adopted a limiting construction on aggravating circumstance (l)(d), as shown in cases extending from 1977 to 1986. We have held that “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” is limited to cases where “torture, sadism, or the imposition of extreme suffering exists,” State v. Moore, supra at 470 , 316 N.W.2d at 41 , or where the murder was preceded by acts “performed for the satisfaction of inflicting either mental or physical pain or that pain existed for any prolonged period of time,” State v. Hunt, [ 220 Neb. 707, 725 , 371 N.W.2d 708, 721 (1985)].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Victor · State v. Otey

2. “The fact that the trial judge turned away from the defendant in an attempt to hide his expressions from the jury while the defendant described, in detail, the atrocities of his crime was inappropriate, but does not constitute prejudicial error in this case. There are cases when such conduct by a judge might constitute prejudicial error in a criminal trial, but in this case, where the evidence of defendant’s guilt is so overwhelming, 17 we hold that the trial judge’s actions did not constitute reversible error. It would have been better had the judge observed all witnesses while they testified about the sickening events, as the jury was required to do, but the judge’s conduct does not constitute prejudicial error in this case. If it be considered that defendant is attacking the judge’s conduct as affecting the guilt-innocence portion of the trial, there are separate reasons why that conduct does not require reversal of this cause on that issue.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ryan · 281 F. Supp. 2d 1008 - Ryan v. Clarke

3. “The balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not merely a matter of number counting but, rather, requires a careful weighing and examination of the various factors. State v. Joubert, 224 Neb. 411 , 399 N.W.2d 237 (1986). Additionally, this court’s automatic review of capital cases does not require it to set aside a death penalty where certain aggravating factors found to exist below are determined here to be unsupported by the evidence. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2528 (Reissue 1985). A finding of a single aggravating circumstance on appeal may be sufficient to support a death sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harper v. Grammer · State v. Reeves