Wainwright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 65 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the jury may have been inconsistent on this factor it was clear in unanimously finding that three aggravating circumstances existed at the time appellant committed the murder. On the other hand, even giving the appellant the benefit of the mitigating circumstance discussed above, the jury only determined that two mitigating circumstances existed. Upon individual polling, each juror stated that he or she had voted for the death penalty. Obviously, the jury found the aggravating circumstances outweighed those mitigating factors, and the trial court was correct in so holding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wainwright v. Norris · Robbins v. State

2. “DEFENSE COUNSEL: In a case, a capital murder case where particularly like this one where there is a robbery-murder connected, do you feel that if that case was proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, that life without parole would be an appropriate punishment for your consideration, depending on what the circumstances were? MR. GILLEYLEN: Well, I believe if the evidence was to the point that there was no, I mean that it was definitely truth, I believe I wouldn’t believe life without parole. DEFENSE COUNSEL: OK, you are saying it would not be severe enough? The punishment? MR. GILLEYLEN: No, not if sufficient evidence, I mean, you know. I believe in whatever evidence it was, but I think it would just, if no question of doubt that a person done something, then I believe he should pay for his crime. DEFENSE COUNSEL: OK. Do you feel that life without parole is an appropriate punishment to be considered in a capital murder case depending on the circumstances? MR. GILLEYLEN: In certain circumstances. DEFENSE COUNSEL: So you can visualize a capital murder where life without parole would be appropriate, would be justice, and you can visualize on the other end of the scale a capital murder where the death penalty would be appropriate? MR. GILLEYLEN: Yes, that’s right. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Both, you would consider both penalties and wait for the facts to tell you which one? MR. GILLEYLEN: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Do you feel that you could listen to the evidence and hold the state to its bur”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wainwright v. Norris

3. “The appellant was read his rights upon his arrest, and before giving his first statement, he initialed and signed the rights form at about 10:08 p.m. on July 29, 1988. On July 30, 1988, at 1:00 a.m., he was shown the previously executed rights form again when he gave his second nonincrimi-nating statement, which read much like his first. Appellant’s third statement was more detailed but still was nonincriminat-ing like his first two. Before giving this statement, he executed a second rights form at 5:45 p.m. on July 31, 1988. At 8:45 p.m. on July 31, he volunteered his fourth statement, which was the incriminating one. While the appellant did not execute a new rights form, an officer asked him if he remembered what his rights were, and the appellant said yes. Our court, in Cope v. State, 292 Ark. 391 , 730 S.W.2d 242 (1987), held there is no requirement that the Miranda warnings, when properly given, must be repeated each time the defendant is questioned. Here, the record indicates the appellant was properly advised of his constitutional rights and that his statements were given after a relatively short period of detention and without undue or prolonged questioning. Furthermore, on the voluntariness issue, the record shows the appellant was twenty-two years old, had a tenth grade education, and could read and write. According to the police officers’ testimony, the appellant appeared to be sober and coherent at the questioning sessions. The police officers testified that he wa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wainwright v. Norris