State v. Dickerson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As has been demonstrated, Furman does not hold that mandatory capital punishment per se, uniformly applied, is violative of the Eighth Amendment. The express reservations of Justices Stewart and White and the analyses contained in the dissenting opinions make that clear. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the mandatory death penalty of the Murder Statute, if uniformly applied, has not been invalidated by Furman. “It is argued, however, that although it may not be specifically covered by the Furman decision, the mandatory death sentence nevertheless will constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the federal constitutional ban. We cannot agree. “The United States Supreme Court has consistently acknowledged the constitutionality of capital punishment per sc. either by assumption or assertion. * * *. “And this Court has consistently rejected the contention that capital punishment per se constitutes ‘cruel’ or ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment within the constitutional bans. '* * * ; «■■»**** “In the light of our consistent judicial policy, and the long history of capital punishment in this State from colonial times, we reaffirm the view that capital punishment per se is not violative of the constitutional guaranties against ‘cruel’ or ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment; and that the retention or abolition of capital punishment in this State is for the decision of the people of this State, speaking through their chosen representatives in the General Assembly.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sheppard · State v. Spence

2. ““ * * * the result reached here does not necessarily solve the problems created by the Furman decision for any state wishing to retain capital punishment. History shows that the mandatory death sentence for first degree murder is also open to caprice and discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty. The jury’s route for the exercise of such caprice and discrimination, historically, is to return a verdict for a lesser-included offense carrying a lesser penalty. There was in this country, almost from the beginning, a ‘rebellion against the common law rule imposing a mandatory death sentence on all convicted murderers’; juries took ‘the law in their own hands’ and refused to convict on the capital offense. The result was widespread legislative development of the discretionary death sentence throughout the country. See McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 198 , 91 S.Ct. 1454, 1462 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971). “Obviously, any lack of uniform application — any discrimination or caprice in the imposition of the death sentence via the lesser-included offense route — will expose the mandatory death penalty provision of the Murder Statute, hereby upheld, to the same condemnation as was accorded the Mercy Statute in the Fur-man case.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. State · State v. Sheppard

3. ““§ 308. Severability of provisions. “If any provision of this Code or amendments hereto, or the application thereof to any person, thing or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions or application of this Code or such amendments that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this Code and such amendments are declared to be severable.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rappa v. New Castle County · State v. Spence