State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 186 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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If, however, a defendant makes a timely request for a listing in writing of possible mitigating circumstances, supported by the evidence, and if these circumstances are such that the jury could reasonably deem them to have mitigating value, we are of the opinion that the trial judge must put such circumstances on the written list. “The legislature did not intend to give those mitigating circumstances expressly mentioned in the statute primacy over others which might be included in the ‘any other circumstance’ provision. Such an intent, if it existed, might run afoul of Lockett v. Ohio, supra, 438 U.S. 586 [ 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 ]. In Lockett Ohio’s death penalty statute was found unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the Ohio sentencing authority could consider only three mitigating factors and none other. The Supreme Court concluded, id. at 604-05 , 608: [98 S.Ct. at 2964-65] ‘that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case, not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death---- The need for treating each defendant in a capital case with that degree of respect due the uniqueness of the individual is far more important than in non-capital cases____ The nonavailability of corrective or modifying mechanisms ”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Pinch · State v. Craig

2. “. . . This mitigating circumstance may exist even if a defendant has capacity to know right from wrong, to know that the act he committed was wrong, and to know the nature and quality of that act. It would exist even under these circumstances if the defendant’s capacity to appreciate (to fully comprehend or be fully sensible of) the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct was impaired (lessened or diminished), or if defendant’s capacity to follow the law and refrain from engaging in the illegal conduct was likewise impaired (lessened or diminished).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Syriani · State v. Johnson

3. “Consider whether this murder was committed while Norris Carlton Taylor was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance. A defendant is under such influence even if it does not justify or excuse his killing, if he is in any way affected or influenced by a mental or emotional disturbance. There has been some evidence in this case to the effect that the defendant was suffering from paranoid psychosis. I say to you that that would be a mental disturbance. The second matter which you should consider under Issue No. 3 is whether or not Norris Carlton Taylor’s capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired. The defendant’s capacity to conform is impaired even if his killing is not justified or excused, and even if he is able to appreciate the criminality of his conduct if he is for any reason less able than a normal person to do what the law requires, or to refrain from what the law forbids. (R p 468).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Taylor · State v. Pinch