State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 54 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “However, after the indictment, such persons may reveal statutory irregularities in grand jury proceedings to defense counsel, the attorney general, the district attorney, or the court, and may testify concerning them. Such persons may disclose testimony given before the grand jury, at any time when permitted by the court, to show that a witness committed perjury in his testimony before the grand jury. A witness may discuss his testimony given before the grand jury with counsel for a person under investigation or indicted, with the attorney general or the district attorney, or with the court.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 438 So. 2d 605 - State v. Willis · 433 So. 2d 73 - State v. Neslo

2. “knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 458 So. 2d 1235 - State v. Welcome · 541 So. 2d 818 - State v. Johnson

3. “1. Petitioner was deprived of his federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at the guilt-innocence stage of his trial. 2. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. 3. The trial court committed constitutional error in failing to provide the jury with limiting instructions on the statutory aggravating factors in Article 905.4 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby increasing the likelihood of an arbitrary and capricious death verdict case. 4. Petitioner was denied a fair sentencing hearing. 5. The petitioner was deprived of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner within the meaning of Article 905.4(g) of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The Supreme Court of Louisiana violated petitioner’s constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when it only reviewed the evidentiary sufficiency of one of the two aggravating circumstances found by the jury. 7. The Supreme Court of Louisiana has adopted inconsistent standards of appellate review thereby increasing the likelihood of arbitrary and capricious sentencing in death cases. 8. The Supreme Court of Louisiana erred in reviewing other first degree murder cases only in the district in which the sentence was imposed rather than reviewing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Blackburn