Taylor v. Workman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “¶ 24 The evidence in the present case does not support the conclusion that [Williams] acted without any premeditated design to effect death. [Williams] took a butcher knife from his home, placed it in a box with a pair of gloves and a roll of duct tape and went to the deceased’s home to meet her at the appointed time. [Williams] and the deceased had met previously and would recognize each other on sight. The deceased was stabbed within five minutes of [Williams’s] arrival at her home. The butcher knife was driven approximately seven inches into the deceased’s body. The ensuing wound was the result of a rapid, hard thrust of the knife into the body with only the handle of the knife visible. This evidence is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find [Williams] acted with the premeditated intent to kill the deceased. ¶ 25 [Williams] disputes the conclusion of premeditation and argues the evidence showed no reason for the victims to feel threatened when he entered their home, therefore there was no evidence to suggest that he formed the intent to kill in advance. Premeditation sufficient to constitute murder may be formed in an instant, or it may be formed instantaneously as the killing is being committed. It may be inferred from the fact of the killing, unless circumstances raise a reasonable doubt whether such design existed. The evidence clearly supports a finding that when [Williams] stabbed the deceased, he did so with the intent to kill her, regardless of whether th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 539 F. App'x 844 - Williams v. Trammell

2. “overwhelming evidence” pointing to Winston as the triggerman is not exclusively a legal determination. Supra at 546. The slate court correctly identified the applicable law to resolve this issue. However, the court’s reading of the facts is what I find not only incorrect but also unreasonable. If the majority does read the court’s statement as a legal determination, then the state court engaged in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Winston v. Kelly

3. “If the evidence would support a verdict of either first degree murder or second degree murder, the jury must be allowed to make the choice. The effect of the OCCA’s contrary approach is to deny the defendant the benefit of the second-degree murder instruction in precisely the circumstance where it is most important: where the evidence would support conviction for first degree murder but would also support conviction on the lesser-included offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. Workman