Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 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 7 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. “Members of the jury, ... the first thing that you're going to have to determine before you go on to this balancing that [counsel] talked about is whether or not the defendant is mentally retarded. And in this case, there is an issue of whether the defendant is or is not mentally retarded. And the reason you have to decide this is because the United States Supreme Court in the famous case of Atkins versus Virginia ... they've ruled that the execution of mentally retarded persons violates the 8th Amendment^ the] [prohibition against [c]ruel and [u]nusual [p]unishment. Consequently, the first thing that you must decide is on the issue of whether the defendant is or is not mentally retarded. In order to find that the defendant is mentally retarded, he must prove to you by a preponderance of the evidence the following: Number one, he possesses limited intellectual functioning, meaning that his IQ score is approximately two standard deviations, which is 30 points, below the mean, which is 100, with a standard error of measurement of three to five points. Number two, that his adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social and practical skills is significantly limited. And, number three, the age of onset was before age 18. [[Image here]] And I’ll address this to all the jurors, and particularly to the foreperson. The same foreperson will deal with the sentencing. It's what I call a mental retardation verdict slip. And it starts off basically simply [as] this: Do you unanimously”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Sanchez

3. “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,⅛ 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. Griffin v. State