Gallo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 53 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We review a trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance for abuse of discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maricela Hinojosa v. State · Venegas v. State

2. “Did those who knew the person best during the developmental stage — his family, friends, teachers, employers, authorities — think he was mentally retarded at that time, and, if so, act in accordance with that determination? Has the person formulated plans and carried them through or is his conduct impulsive? Does his conduct show leadership or does it show that he is led around by others? Is his conduct in response to external stimuli rational and appropriate, regardless of whether it is socially acceptable? Does he respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral or written questions or do his responses wander from subject to subject? Can the person hide facts or lie effectively in his own or others’ interests? Putting aside any heinousness or gruesomeness surrounding the capital offense, did the commission of that offense require forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. State

3. “[I]n a habeas action, a defendant has the burden to prove mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence. Similarly, we now hold that when the issue is presented at trial, a defendant bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish that he is mentally retarded.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Busby v. Davis