369 So. 2d 1251 - Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 83 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At Cook's sentencing hearing the trial judge found that two aggravating circumstances were present: (4)—a capital felony committed in the course of a robbery, and (6)—a capital felony committed for pecuniary gain. In so finding we feel that the learned trial judge misconstrued the latter aggravating circumstance, in effect condemning Cook twice for the same culpable act—stealing money. Subsection 6 would, of course, cover a variety of crimes committed with the hope of financial benefit, ranging from `murder-for-hire' to an heir killing his benefactor to gain his inheritance. But we do not think it appropriate to apply this aggravating circumstance to situations already condemned under subsection 4 which by definition involve an attempt at pecuniary gain. Thus, to avoid repetition, subsection 6 should not be applied to a robbery. The trial court erred in considering it and including it in the findings of fact.”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Henderson v. State · State v. Quesinberry

2. “". . . Cook's background presents even less of an admissible criminal history than the trial judge believed. At the hearing the trial judge improperly considered evidence of a pending robbery charge and in effect decided that case without benefit of a trial by jury. Of course, it could not seriously be contended that evidence could be presented of a prior acquittal even though the defendant had clearly escaped justice on the most technical of technicalities. Consequently, a pending charge cannot be considered either. Cook may well be convicted at some future date of this robbery, but then again he may not be convicted for any number of reasons. Until the State proves him guilty of this charge in accordance with appropriate legal procedures Cook is presumed innocent. This fundamental tenet of our system of justice prohibits use against an individual of unproven charges in this life or death situation."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Waldrop v. State · 380 So. 2d 926 - Keller v. State

3. “"That Lewis committed the capital felony while he was engaged or an accomplice in the commission of robbery; and "That Lewis was previously convicted of a felony involving the use of violence to the person. "The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals concluded two specific mitigating circumstances require life imprisonment of Lewis without parole. They are: "That Lewis committed the capital felony while under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; and "That the capacity of Lewis to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired. "The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, on page two of its judgment reversing the sentence of Lewis to death declared: "As pointed out in Judge Clark's opinion, `the death penalty is not sustained by the evidence presented at the hearing on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berard v. State · 380 So. 2d 970 - Lewis v. State