Booth v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 67 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Based upon the evidence, we unanimously find that each of the following state ments marked “proven” has been proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT and that each of those statements marked “not proven” has not been proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 1. The defendant was a principal in the first degree to the murder. proven not proven {Id., Ex. 39 at 173.) Booth-El promptly requested that the jury be dismissed and a life sentence imposed pursuant to § 413(k)(2). His request was denied. {Id., Ex. 25 at 15-17.) Judge Angeletti then instructed the jury: I am going to reread to you the charge on the law so that you are clear as to what your responsibilities are in that area. The law requires that in order for you to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the State has proven that Mr. Booth was a first degree principal in the murder of Mr. Bronstein, all of you must agree within a reasonable time, and your verdict must be unanimous. If any of you cannot conclude that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Booth is a principal in the murder of Mr. Bronstein, then you must mark “not proven” in the form and enter the words “life imprisonment” in Section 6. In arriving at your decision, you must consult with one another and deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you must do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 F. Supp. 2d 495 - Booth-El v. Nuth · Booth-El v. Nuth

2. ““[gjiving the [proposed] instruction to the jury before deliberation could prompt someone to hold out for just a bit more than a reasonable time to insure that the death penalty was not imposed. It likewise could cause a jury to rush through its deliberations to avoid being called back by the court and told that because a reasonable time had passed without a verdict the sentence would be life imprisonment. The statute is a mandate directed to the court, not the jury. As the jury here reached its decision within a reasonable time, no instruction was required.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miles v. State · Bruce v. State

3. “Section IV, Question 8(a) of the sentencing form submitted to Booth’s jury stated: “We unanimously find by a preponderance of the evidence that the following additional mitigating circumstances exist.” -Question 8(b) read: “One or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the following additional mitigating circumstances exist.” Section V of the sentencing form provided: “Each individual juror shall weigh the aggravating circumstances found unanimously to exist against any mitigating circumstances found unanimously to exist, as well as against any mitigating circumstances found by that individual juror to exist.” “We unanimously find that the State has proven by A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE that the aggravating circumstances marked ‘proven’ in Section III outweigh the mitigating circumstances in Section IV. [Yes or No]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 F. Supp. 2d 495 - Booth-El v. Nuth