Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

103 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At the sentencing hearing, the question to be decided by the jury is whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment. At this hearing, the State may elect to stand on the case made at the first hearing, if before the same jury, or may reintroduce any part of the evidence adduced at the first hearing which it considers to be relevant to the particular question of whether the defendant shall suffer death or be sentenced to life imprisonment. In addition thereto, an accused's prior record of criminal convictions, if any, may be proven as an additional aggravating circumstance whether the defendant testifies in his own behalf or not. At this hearing, the defendant may prove his lack of a prior criminal record as a mitigating circumstance and may also adduce proof of any other circumstance or combination of circumstances surrounding his life and character or the commission of the offense with which he is charged that would be reasonably relevant to the question of whether he should suffer death or be sentenced to life in prison. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the statutory elements of the capital offense with which the accused is charged shall constitute sufficient circumstance to authorize imposition of the penalty of death unless the mitigating circumstances shown by the evidence outweigh the aggravating circumstances. The jury shall not be required to make a special finding of any mitigating circumstance in order to return a verdict that the accuse”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. State · 390 So. 2d 584 - In Re Jordan

2. “Instruction II-16D The Court instructs the Jury that a mitigating circumstance does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to exist. You must find that a mitigating circumstance exists if there is any substantial evidence to support it. Instruction II-17D Regardless of the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, you may afford Kevin Turner mercy in this proceeding. Instruction II-18D The Court instructs the Jury that you need not find any mitigating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. Instruction II-19D The verdict of the jury must represent the considered judgment of each juror. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate in view of reaching an agreement if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous, but do not surrender your honest convictions as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning the verdict.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. State · 573 So. 2d 657 - Turner v. State

3. “circumstances or combination of circumstances surrounding his life and character or the commission of the offense with which he is charged that would be reasonably relevant to the question of whether he should suffer death”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 645 So. 2d 829 - Chase v. State · 554 So. 2d 887 - Shell v. State