Commonwealth v. Rompilla’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 38 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1)Trial counsel were ineffective at the capital sentencing phase for failing to investigate, develop and present significant mitigating evidence related to petitioner's traumatic childhood, alcoholism, mental retardation, cognitive impairment and organic brain damage; (2) Petitioner is entitled to relief from his conviction and death sentence because of the trial court’s improper instruction on accomplice liability; (3) The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that "life imprisonment” means life without possibility of parole, even after the jury repeatedly asked about parole eligibility; and the trial court's provision, instead, of inaccurate and misleading information, violated petitioner’s Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (4) Petitioner is entitled to relief from his death sentence because the (d)(8) aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally obtained; (5) Petitioner is entitled to relief from his death sentence because the (d)(9) “significant history” of felony convictions aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague; the jury instructions did not cure this vagueness; and the jury instructions, to the extent they provided guidance at all, directed a finding of this aggravating circumstance; (6) Petitioner is entitled to relief from his death sentence because of improper prose-cutorial argument at the penalty phase; (7) Petitioner is entitled to relief from his death sentence because the trial court improperly allowed the prosecutor to read”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rompilla v. Horn

2. “Under the current state of the law in Pennsylvania, the jury must be told that life means life without parole only when the defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue. Commonwealth v. Clark, 551 Pa. 258 , 710 A.2d 31 , 35-36 (Pa.1998). Appellant argues that his future dangerousness was at issue because the Commonwealth argued the aggravating circumstance that he has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence. The Court rejected this argument in Commonwealth v. May, 551 Pa. 286 , 710 A.2d 44 , 47 (Pa.1998). As stated in that case, this aggravating circumstance only addresses Appellant’s past conduct, not his future dangerousness. See id. Thus, no relief is due. 10”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rompilla v. Horn

3. “I’m sorry to say, I can’t answer that question. That’s not before you as such. The only matter that you can consider in the Sentencing Hearing is the evidence that was brought out in the course of the Hearing and the Law with respect to the Court’s Charge. That’s the only consideration you have, I’m sorry to say. I-if there were other alternatives that you should consider, we would have outlined them in the Charge, all right. Are there any other questions?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rompilla v. Horn