Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 36 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[Thhe determination of weight to be accorded the aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not a 'fact' which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but is a balancing process."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Spranger v. State

2. “is manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. State · Vandiver v. State

3. “'The United States Supreme Court set out the standard to be followed on voir dire in death penalty cases in Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 . The Court held that the jury impartiality to which a erim-mal defendant is entitled precludes a state from carrying out a sentence of death if the jury that imposed or recommended the death penalty 'was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.' 891 U.S. at 522, 88 S.Ct. at 1777 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 785 . Only when a venireman is "irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings' can he be struck for cause. 391 U.S. at 522 -28 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1777 n. 21, 20 L.Ed.2d at 785 n. 21. Indiana has followed this decision in Lamar v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 689 , 366 N.E.2d 652 , and Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . It has been clearly recognized that the Witherspoon standard can present a dilemma to the trial court when some of a juror's answers about his belief in the death penalty are equivocal. It is then the duty of the trial court to pursue the matter further until it is established that the juror is 'irrevocably committed to vote against the death penalty. Lamar v. State, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fleenor v. State