Trimble v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

127 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e have characterized instances when an appellate court should take cognizance of unobjected to error as compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant of [a] fair trial. We further made clear that we would intervene in those circumstances only when the error complained of was so material to the rights of the accused as to amount to the kind of prejudice which precluded an impartial trial.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 Md. App. 582 - Collins v. State · Rubin v. State

2. ““(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; (2) Whether the evidence supports the jury’s or court’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance under § 413(d); (3) Whether the evidence supports the jury’s or court’s finding that the aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by mitigating circumstances; and (4) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Oken v. State · Foster v. State

3. ““In part, capital punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes rather than self-help to vindicate their wrongs. “ ‘The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law. WTien people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they “deserve,” then there are sown the seeds of anarchy — of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.’ Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. [238,] 308, 92 S.Ct. [2726], 2761[, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, 389 (1972) ] (Stewart, J., concurring). “ ‘Retribution is no longer the dominant objective of the criminal law,’ Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 248 , 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1084 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 [, 1343] (1949), but neither is it a forbidden objective nor one inconsistent with our respect for the dignity of men. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. at 394-395 , 92 S.Ct. at 2806-2807 [, 33 L.Ed.2d at 438-39 ] (Burger, C.J., dissenting); id. at 452-454 , 92 S.Ct. at 2835-2836 [, 33 L.Ed.2d at 472-74 ] (Powell, J., dissenting); Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. [514,] 531, 535-536, 88 S.Ct. [2145,] 2153, 2155 — 2156[, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254, 1266-67, 1269-70 (1968) ] (plurality opinion).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colvin-El v. State