Codrington v. People’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[T]he plain language of Section 922(a)(1) defines four specific methods of killing which are first degree homicide (poison, lying in wait, torture, and bombs), then provides that other killings, regardless of method, are also first degree murder when committed with a specific mindset. Because the statute lists four examples as specific ways to commit first degree murder and then states that “any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated” murder is also first degree murder, a murder accomplished through one of the four enumerated methods does not require a willful, deliberate, and premeditated showing... It is clear from a simple reading of the plain language of section 922(a)(1) that the Legislature intended to define all murder accomplished by the four enumerated examples — poison, detonation of a bomb, lying in wait, and torture — and any other murder, regardless of how the murder was accomplished, so long as the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated as first degree murder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Billu v. People

2. “[defendants] may be prosecuted by information unless a local law requires [they] be prosecuted by grand jury.” Simmonds v. People, 59 V.I. 480 , 490 (2013) (quoting Codrington v. People, 57 V.I. 176 , 196 (2012)). 3 . While”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fahie v. Virgin Islands