Mason v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 federal appellate · 5 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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement.” Mason v. Mitchell, 320 F.3d 604 , 631 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 495, 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)). See also United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416 , 421 (6th Cir.1999). Whether a suspect is”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Ray · 989 F. Supp. 2d 643 - Hancher v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

2. “(B) If one or more of the aggravating circumstances listed in division (A) of this section is specified in the indictment or count in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt ..., the court, trial jury, or panel of three judges shall consider, and weigh against the aggravating circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history, character, and background of the offender, and all of the following factors: (1) Whether the victim of the offense induced or facilitated it; (2) Whether it is unlikely that the offense would have been committed, but for the fact that the offender was under duress, coercion, or strong provocation; (3) Whether, at the time of committing the offense, the offender, because of a mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the offender's conduct or to conform the offender's conduct to the requirements of the law; (4) The youth of the offender; (5) The offender's lack of a significant history of prior criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications; (6) If the offender was a participant in the offense but not the principal offender, the degree of the offender’s participation in the offense and the degree of the offender’s participation in the acts that led to the death of the victim; (7) Any other factors that are relevant to tire issue of whether tire offender should be sentenced to death. (C) The defendant shall be given great latitude in the pres”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goff v. Bagley

3. “On February 8, 1993, Robin Dennis (“Robin”), the nineteen-year-old wife of Chris Dennis (“Chris”), disappeared. Earlier that day, Robin and Chris had socialized with Mason and other friends, and Chris and Mason had discussed trading Chris’s .22 caliber Colt Frontier Scout revolver for Mason’s television. The next day, Robin was reported as missing to the Union County Sheriffs Department; the report stated that Mason was the last person seen with Robin. On February 10, 1993, Deputy Sheriff Jack Lautenslager (“Lautenslager”) received a report about an abandoned car in a rural area of Marion County. Two days earlier, Lautenslager had driven through that area and seen a black man walking, whom he later identified as Mason. Chevron-style shoe impressions, similar to those made by shoes that Mason and Robin owned, were found on the outside of the passenger door and on the passenger’s side of the dash. Type-13 blood, Robin’s blood type, was found on the inside of the passenger door. A set of keys, including car keys that fit a 1981 Chrysler owned by Mason’s wife, was on the car’s front passenger seat. A few hours after this discovery, Dennis Potts (“Potts”) of the Marion County Sheriffs Department questioned Mason about Robin’s disappearance. This interview took place at the detective’s office of the Sheriffs Department and lasted for eighteen minutes. On February 12, 1993, following up on information from other interviews, Potts questioned Mason again. The second interview took pla”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mason v. Mitchell