Millar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This Court has previously considered and decided this issue and found that Furman did not apply. In Wilson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 112, 121 , 374 N.E.2d 45 , 50 our Court stated: “Appellant further argues that the jury was not provided with adequate guidelines to choose between a life sentence and a lesser sentence of fifteen to twenty-five years in prison for the crime of second-degree murder. He argues that the lack of guidelines makes the jury’s choice of the greater sentence cruel and unusual punishment under the concept of Furman v. Georgia, (1972) 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 . Appellant does not demonstrate that Furman , which dealt with the death penalty, applies to sentences of imprisonment for murder as are involved in this case. Neither is it demonstrated that Furman stands for any constitutional mandate of ‘guidelines’ for use by the jury any time the sentencing function is undertaken. We do not believe that Furman so applies, and find this argument to be without merit.” Identical constitutional claims were also considered and rejected in Jones v. State, (1979) Ind., 385 N.E.2d 426 and in Baum v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 176 , 379 N.E.2d 437 . We reaffirm our holdings in these cases and find no error in the denial of defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief on these grounds.””

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