Huffington v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 48 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘[T]o aid the sentencing [body] in fairly and intelligently exercising the discretion vested in [it], the procedural policy of the State encourages [the] consideration of] information concerning the convicted person’s reputation, past offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, social background and any other matters that a [sentencing body] ought to have before [it] in determining the sentence that should be imposed.’.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Calhoun · Colvin-El v. State

2. “addresses the case where the victim is partially responsible for his own death. This circumstance obtains chiefly in two kinds of situations. First, there are occasions in which the defendant and his victim are engaged jointly in an activity highly dangerous to each. If each person’s participation depends upon the cooperation of the other, a murder conviction may lie for the death of one actor, even though both share responsibility. An example may be the case of Russian Roulette, at least where the defendant actually fires the shot that kills his partner. A second situation within the scope of [the mitigating circumstance] is the true mercy killing. There the defendant’s homicidal act may not have occurred had the victim not consented to it. In either of these contexts, the conduct of the victim in bringing about his own death deserves consideration as a mitigating factor in assigning a death sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Larry · 962 F. Supp. 804 - United States v. Beckford

3. “‘More important, and more often drawn in question, is the requirement that the party against whom the former testimony is now offered, or a party in like interest, must have had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine. Actual cross-examination, of course, is not essential, if the opportunity was afforded and waived. The opportunity must have been such as to render the conduct of the cross-examination or the decision not to cross-examine meaningful in the light of the circumstances which prevail when the former testimony is offered’.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 Md. App. 9 - Board of Education v. Plymouth Rubber Co. · Traverso v. State