494 So. 2d 726 - Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 34 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[A]round 10:30 on the morning of December 1, 1977, Mr. Green [one of the victims] had cashed checks in the amount of $900 at a local bank and placed the money in a red bank bag. Shortly before noon, it was discovered that Mr. and Mrs. Green had been tied together and shot in their Western Auto Store in Mount Vernon. The money was missing from the cash register, and a television, a stereo component system, and several watches were also missing from the store. Mr. Green was not wearing the Seiko watch he had been wearing earlier that morning. His family had given him this watch as a birthday present on November 30, 1977. "Doris Lacey Lambert testified that, on the 2nd day of December of 1977, the defendant told her that `he had went out with some of his friends,' `Craig, Roger, and "Gill Man,'" to Mount Vernon and that `he killed two people' with a gun in a Western Auto Store. "On cross examination, Ms. Lambert admitted that she had one child by the defendant but denied making the statement that `before she would see another woman have him she would see him dead' after she learned that the defendant was engaged to another woman. She admitted that she had been convicted of shoplifting. "Roger McQueen testified that he had been convicted of armed robbery and was going to plead guilty to first degree murder for the Mount Vernon killings. He `considered himself a guilty participant in this murder.' McQueen stated that he and Craig lived in the same apartment complex in Mobile. On ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wright v. Hopper · 766 So. 2d 213 - Wright v. State

2. “"[F]or the reasons set out by the trial court, this capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel when compared to other capital offenses. Execution-type slayings evincing a cold, calculated design to kill, fall into the category of heinous, atrocious or cruel. Vaught v. State, 410 So.2d 147 (Fla.1982); Combs v. State, 403 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981); Armstrong v. State, 399 So.2d 953 (Fla.1981); Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d 533 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 3234 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1226 (1976). We recognize that an instantaneous death caused by gunfire is not ordinarily a heinous killing. Odom v. State, 403 So.2d 936 (Fla.1981). However, when a defendant deliberately shoots a victim in the head in a calculated fashion to avoid later identification, after the victim has already been rendered helpless by gunshots to the chest, such `extremely wicked or shockingly evil' actions may be characterized as especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. Hargrave v. State, 366 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla.1978)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 695 So. 2d 70 - Bush v. State · 891 So. 2d 384 - Ex Parte Key

3. “`in order that they would not be witnesses'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 891 So. 2d 384 - Ex Parte Key · 728 So. 2d 1126 - Ex Parte Clark