Lambright v. Schriro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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. “If evidence relating to life circumstances with no causal relationship to the crime were to be eliminated, significant aspects of a defendant’s disadvantaged background, emotional and mental problems, and adverse history, as well as his positive character traits, would not be considered, even though some of these factors, both positive and negative, might cause a sentencer to determine that a life sentence, rather than death at the hands of the state, is the appropriate punishment for the particular defendant. This is simply unacceptable in any capital sentencing proceeding, given that “treating each defendant in a capital case with that degree of respect due the uniqueness of the individual,” and determining whether or not he is deserving of execution only after taking his unique life circumstances, disabilities, and traits into account, is constitutionally required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robinson v. Schriro

2. “[a] decision not to ... offer particular mitigating evidence is unreasonable unless counsel has explored the issue sufficiently to discover the facts that might be relevant to his making an informed decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Theodore Wash. v. Ryan

3. “suffers from a personality disorder with antisocial, borderline, and inadequate features”); Stankewitz v. Woodford, 365 F.3d 706 , 718 (9th Cir.2004) (three post-conviction experts agreed petitioner”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rhoades v. Henry