Commonwealth v. Hackett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1.We the jury unanimously sentence the defendant in the above matter to X Death _Life Imprisonment 2.(To be completed if the Sentence is Death) We the jury have found unanimously _ At least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances. The aggravated circumstance(s)(is)(are): 1._In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense. 2. _The defendant has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person. 3._The defendant has been convicted of another federal or state offense, committed either before or at the time of the offense at issue, for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable or the defendant was undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment for any reason at the time of the commission of the offense. Or X One or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstance or circumstances. The aggravating eircumstance(s)(is)(are): 1._In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense. 2._The defendant has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use of threat of violence to the person. 3. X The defendant has been convicted of another federal or state offense, committed either before or at the time of the offense at issue, for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death was”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Spence · 276 F. Supp. 2d 278 - Porter v. Horn

2. “Mills concerned a Maryland statute which required jurors unanimously to agree on each individual mitigating circumstance after deciding aggravating factors. Absent unanimous agreement, the Maryland statute barred consideration of the mitigating evidence as to a given circumstance. The Pennsylvania statute, ... does the opposite and, therefore, does not violate the rule in Mills . ... The Pennsylvania statute, ... requires that the jury unanimously agree that no mitigating circumstances exist and unanimously agree on a verdict for a sentence of death. Thus, while a single Pennsylvania juror can always prevent a death sentence, a single juror can never compel one, as could a single juror under the former Maryland statute. Jury instructions in the penalty phase which follow the language of the death penalty statute do not recreate the error in Mills , [citing prior cases upholding the same instructions.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 212 F. Supp. 2d 382 - Hackett v. Price · Commonwealth v. Laird

3. “Mills concerned a Maryland statute which required jurors unanimously to agree on each individual mitigating circumstance after deciding aggravating factors. Absent unanimous agreement, the Maryland statute barred consideration of the mitigating evidence as to a given circumstance. The Supreme Court held that the statute violated the Eighth Amendment because a single Maryland juror could force a death verdict on the other jurors by refusing to agree that mitigation existed. The Pennsylvania statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711, does the opposite and, therefore, does not violate the rule in Mills . The Pennsylvania statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(l)(iv), requires that the jury unanimously agree that no mitigating circumstances exist and unanimously agree on a verdict for a sentence of death. Thus, while a single Pennsylvania juror can always prevent a death sentence, a single juror can never compel one, as could a single juror under the former Maryland statute. Jury instructions in the penalty phase which follow the language of the death penalty statute do not recreate the error in Mills .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Whitney