527 So. 2d 809 - Fitzpatrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Fitzpatrick's actions were those of a seriously emotionally disturbed man-child, not those of a cold-blooded, heartless killer.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 761 So. 2d 269 - Robinson v. State · 538 So. 2d 829 - Hudson v. State

2. “"Any review of the proportionality of the death penalty in a particular case must begin with the premise that death is different. In State v. Dixon , 283 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), cert. denied sub nom. , 416 U.S. 943 , 94 S.Ct. 1950 , 40 L.Ed.2d 295 (1974), this Court upheld Florida's amended capital punishment statute, stating that: *Page 160 " ' Death is a unique punishment in its finality and in its total rejection of the possibility of rehabilitation. It is proper, therefore, that the legislature has chosen to reserve its application to only the most aggravated and unmitigated of most serious crimes. ' " Id. at 7 (emphasis added). As we further stated in Dixon , the legislature intended the death penalty to be imposed 'for the most aggravated, the most indefensible of crimes.' Id. at 8 . in Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), Justice Stewart began his concurring opinion with an instructive admonition: "The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind. It is unique in its total irrevocability. It is unique in its rejection of rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity. " 408 U.S. at 306 , 92 S.Ct. at 2760 (Stewart, J., concurring) ( quoted in Hamblen v. State , 527 So.2d 800 (Fla. 1988) (Barkett, J., dissenting))."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 575 So. 2d 145 - Hadley v. State · 593 So. 2d 198 - Watts v. State

3. “extreme emotional and mental disturbance and that his capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 770 So. 2d 1119 - Kearse v. State · 538 So. 2d 829 - Hudson v. State