Sowell v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 15 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The record discloses that [Sowell] and [Calvert] Graham resided in adjacent apartments on the third floor of an apartment building in downtown Cincinnati. [Sowell] was the resident manager of the building and became acquainted with Graham, who performed occasional odd jobs at the apartment building. After Graham became a resident in [So-well’s] apartment building, the two men developed a friendly relationship and visited one another in their respective residences. On May 1, 1983, three days prior to the instant offenses, [Sowell] was a guest in Graham’s apartment. Also present were Donna Edwards (Edwards), a woman with whom Graham shared the apartment, and [Pam] Billups [a former prostitute who had been visiting Graham and Edwards]. Graham offered two marijuana cigarettes to [So-well], which he accepted. Thereafter [Sowell] left the apartment in the company of Billups and proceeded to a nearby restaurant where he purchased dinner for her. En route to the restaurant, [Sowell] smoked the second marijuana cigarette, having consumed the first at Graham’s residence. Thereafter (the pair made their way to a hotel where [Sowell] rented a room. There was conflicting testimony concerning the events that transpired thereafter. However, it is not disputed that [Sowell] eventually lost consciousness, having consumed an unspecified quantity of wine during the evening in addition to the marijuana. The next morning [Sowell] made his way back to his residence, stopping along his route to obt”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sowell v. Anderson · 557 F. Supp. 2d 843 - Sowell v. Collins

2. “[T]he simple fact that Piñales [defense counsel] mistakenly thought that Judge Crush would not impose death does not mean that Piñales was acting unreasonably. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that everything came down to Pinales’s recommendation, and it did not matter how much Sowell may or may not have been informed of what he was giving up and risking. Both Piñales and Sowell testified that Sowell trusted Piñales implicitly, and decided to waive solely because of Pinales’s recommendation. See J.A. at 527-28 (Piñales testifying that “Billy Joe totally relied on the advice that I was giving.... He was like a lost puppy in the jail, and I think I became his only friend. So I certainly think he relied on what I said.”); id. at 558-59. * * * Everything appears to come down to whether Piñales had a reasonable basis for thinking that Judge Crush would not impose a death sentence. The district court did not consider this issue, and the record does not show that Pi-ñales had no reasonable basis for so thinking. Piñales recommended that Sowell take a calculated risk, which he did. There was no evidence that Piñales guaranteed Sowell a result, or misstated the law.”

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

3. “A defendant, therefore, should have both the mental ability and some knowledge of the jury trial right before he is allowed to waive it. A technical knowledge of the jury trial right, however, is not what is required. A defendant is sufficiently informed to make an intelligent waiver if he was aware that a jury is composed of 12 members of the community, he may participate in the selec tion of the jurors, the verdict of the jury-must be unanimous, and that a judge alone will decide guilt or innocence should he waive his jury trial right.”

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