399 So. 2d 953 - Armstrong v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 25 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The error did not impair the process of weighing the aggravating against the mitigating circumstances because there were no mitigating circumstances to weigh.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 463 So. 2d 186 - Randolph v. State · Glock v. Singletary

2. “Turning now to any possible mitigating circumstances, the defendant is a relatively young man at age twenty-four. However, he reached his majority six years ago — long enough to mature and become a productive and respectable member of society rather than a pimp living off his woman. The evidence did show that the defendant had at least one dose of heroin earlier in the evening of the night the victim was shot. This might possibly have impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Certainly the direct testimony concerning his conduct before and after the shooting belies this. After having given full consideration to all evidence heard by the Court, and considering the advisory sentence rendered by the jury, the undersigned is of the firm opinion that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh any possible mitigating circumstances and that the death sentence imposed upon the defendant, Tommie L. Randolph is justified and required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 463 So. 2d 186 - Randolph v. State

3. “the prosecution wanted was testimony linking the appellant to the crimes. We disagree. In Lee v. State , the error was not in allowing the witness to testify but in keeping from the jury information regarding the arrangement by which the state gained the cooperation of the witness. In Davis , the prosecutor indicated to the witness that she should testify consistently with what she said before. Thus he”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 399 So. 2d 1362 - Enmund v. State