Ex Parte Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A trial court's ruling on challenges for cause based on bias [are] entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly shown to be an abuse of discretion.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State · Bryant v. State

2. “"The charge to the jury in the instant case was in accordance with the pattern jury instruction and in accordance with Ala.Code 1975, ง 13A-5-45(g). The jury was told that the defendant had the burden of injecting an issue of mitigating circumstances, but that once it was injected the state had the burden of disproving the factual existence of any mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. There was no jury charge or verdict form to indicate that at least 10 jurors must agree on the existence of a mitigating circumstance. "We have considered the trial court's charge to the jury in light of the holding in Mills and are of the opinion that the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dill v. State · Tyson v. State

3. “"In Booth v. Maryland , 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), the Court held that the introduction at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial in state court of a victim impact statement, describing the effect of the crime on the victim's family, violates the Eighth Amendment. This case, however, differs from Booth . "In Booth , the victim impact statement was submitted to the jury for its consideration. In the present case, the presentence report was not presented to the jury, but was presented to the court. We also note that the victim impact information comprises only three sentences in a 36-page report that contains, among other things, details of the offense, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, Martin's criminal record, and Martin's personal history. We hold that the introduction of the presentence report containing the above statement was not error."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 577 So. 2d 474 - Kuenzel v. State · 581 So. 2d 497 - Smith v. State