Gates v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 132 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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Where two or more statutory aggravating circumstances are found by the jury, the failure of one circumstance does not so taint the proceedings as to invalidate the other aggravating circumstance found and the sentence of death based thereon.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Drake v. Zant Westbrook · 397 So. 2d 1258 - State v. Monroe

2. ““Gentlemen of the Jury, the defendant in this case has been found guilty at your hands of the offense of Murder, and it is your duty to make certain determinations with respect to the penalty to be imposed as punishment for that offense. Now in arriving at your determinations in this regard you are authorized to consider all of the evidence received in court throughout the trial before you. You are further authorized to consider all facts and circumstances presented in extinuation [sic], mitigation and aggravation of punishment as well as such arguments as have been presented for the State and for the Defense. Under the law of this State every person guilty of Murder shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life, the sentence to be fixed by the jury trying the case. In all cases of Murder for which the death penalty may be authorized the jury shall consider any mitigating circumstances or aggravating circumstances authorized by law. You may consider any of the following statutory aggravating circumstances which you find are supported by the evidence. One, the offense of Murder was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a Capital felony, or the offense of Murder was committed by a person who has a substantial history of serious assaultive criminal convictions. Two, the offense of Murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victim. Three, the offense of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Zant v. Stephens · Fair v. State

3. ““Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence over objection defendant’s pleas of guilty to three unrelated crimes, committed after the crimes for which defendant was being tried---- ****** “Defendant asserts that such ‘prior criminal convictions and pleas of guilty,’ as to crimes committed after the murder for which he was on trial, are not admissible under Code Ann. § 27-2503, the scheme of which he contends is to provide more severe punishment for incorrigibles than for those who have not yet had the opportunity to be rehabilitated by the penal system. Defendant misinterprets the law. The cited Code section provides a scheme for presenting defendant’s history to the sentencing authority (the jury in death cases) so that it may make the proper decision as to punishment. At issue for sentencing purposes is the status of the defendant at the time of sentencing, not his status at the moment he committed the crimes for which he was tried. The court did not err in admitting these prior pleas in the sentencing phase. See Clark v. State, 146 Ga.App. 799, 800 , 247 S.E.2d 489 (1978). On the one hand the defendant is allowed to introduce evidence in mitigation, and on the other hand the state is allowed to introduce prior pleas and convictions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. State