Mark David Johnson v. Gary Gibson -’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he trial court’s instruction that it was inappropriate for the jury to consider parole eligibility did not refer the jury back to the instructions; rather, it plainly contradicted those instructions. The trial court did more than give a non-responsive answer — it told the jury that parole eligibility could not be considered when plainly it could be. At best, the jury had a conflict between the court’s instructions as to whether it was proper to consider parole eligibility in imposing sentence. At worst, the jury may very well have thought that parole was available, even with the life without parole option, but for some unknown reason it could not consider that fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mollett v. Mullin

2. “The defendant in this case has been found guilty by you, the jury, of the offense of murder in the first degree. It is now your duty to determine the penalty to be imposed for this offense. Under the law of the State of Oklahoma, every person found guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 497 F. Supp. 2d 1257 - Murphy v. Sirmons

3. “(1) the prosecution seeks the death penalty; (2) the prosecution places the defendant’s “future dangerousness ... at issue,” (3) the jury asks for clarification of the meaning of “life imprisonment,” or a synonymous statutory term, and (4) the judge’s response threatens to cause “a jury’s misunderstanding so the jury will ... perceive a ‘false choice’ of incarceration when future dangerousness is at issue.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warner v. Workman