State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “(a) Before the jury retires for deliberation, the judge must give an instruction which informs the jury that in order to return a verdict, all 12 jurors must agree to a verdict of guilty or not guilty. (b) Before the jury retires for deliberation, the judge may give an instruction which informs the jury that: (1) Jurors have a duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if it can be done without violence to individual judgment; (2) Each juror must decide the case for himself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with his fellow jurors; (3) In the course of deliberations, a juror should not hesitate to reexamine his own views and change his opinion if convinced it is erroneous; and (4) No juror should surrender his honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of his fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. (c) If it appears to the judge that the jury has been unable to agree, the judge may require the jury to continue its deliberations and may give or repeat the instructions provided in subsections (a) and (b). The judge may not require or threaten to require the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals. (d) If it appears that there is no reasonable possibility of agreement, the judge may declare a mistrial and discharge the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Evans

2. “While a juror may not be precluded from considering evidence proffered by defendant as a basis for a sentence less than death, Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1978); Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 106 L. Ed. 2d 256 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 71 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1983); McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 , 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990), a jury is not required to agree with a defendant that the evidence he proffers in mitigation is, in fact, mitigating, Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 807 , reh’g denied, 736 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 966 , 83 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1984), unless the legislature has declared it to be mitigating as a matter of law. State v. Fullwood, 323 N.C. 371 , 373 S.E.2d 518 (1988), sentence vacated, 494 U.S. 433 , 108 L. Ed. 2d 602 (1990), on remand, 327 N.C. 473 , 397 S.E.2d 226 (1990), on remand, 329 N.C. 233 , 404 S.E.2d 842 (1991).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gregory

3. “5. Consider whether the age of the defendant at the time of this murder is a mitigating factor. The mitigating effect[] of the age of the defendant is for you to determine from all of the facts and circumstances which you find from the evidence. If one or more of you finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the circumstance exists, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write, yes in the space provided after this mitigating circumstance on the issues and recommendation form. If none of you finds this circumstance to exist, you would so indicate by having your foreperson write no in that space.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gregory