Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Defendant must prove Special Issue No. 3-submitted to you by a preponderance of the evidence, and you shall return a Special Verdict of “YES” or “NO” on Special Issue No. [3]. -■ “Preponderance of the evidence”-means the greater weight and .degree of credible evidence, including- testimony, that has been introduced in this case. Special Issue No. 3 asks: “Is the Defendant mentally retarded as that term is defined herein.” “Mental retardation” is defined as a disability characterized by: (1) significant subaverage general intellectual functioning; (2) accompanied by related limitations in adaptive functioning; (3) the onset of which" occurs prior to the age of 18. “Sub-average general intellectual functioning” refers to measured intelligence on standardized psychometric instruments of two or more standard deviations below the age-group mean for the tests used'. “Adaptive behavior” means the effectiveness with or degree to which a person meets the standards of personal independence and social’ responsibility expected of the person’s age and cultural group. In deliberating on Special Issue No. 3, you shall consider all the evidence admitted at both, the guilt or innocence phase of the trial and the punishment phase of, the trial, including evidence of the defendant’s background, character, or the circumstances of the offense that militates for or mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty. You may not answer Special Issue No. 3 “YES” unless you agree unanimously. ”

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

2. “Did those who knew the offender 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 and 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. Ex Parte Hearn