573 So. 2d 657 - Turner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Simmons v. South Carolina (1994), 592 So. 2d 114 - Hansen v. State (1991)
102 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Batson v. Kentucky · Bruton v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Gregg v. Georgia
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that a judge, sworn to administer impartial justice, is qualified and unbiased. To overcome the presumption, the evidence must produce a `reasonable doubt' (about the validity of the presumption)[.]”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“the propriety of his or her sitting is a question to be decided by the judge and is subject to review only in case of manifest abuse of discretion.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“() Whether the capital murder was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment, as more fully defined in other instructions of the Court. () Whether the defendant was previously convicted of another capital offense or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person. () Whether the capital murder was committed intentionally while the defendant was engaged in the commission of kidnapping or flight after committing kidnapping. () Whether the capital murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing the detection and lawful arrest of the defendant. () Whether the capital murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, as defined in other instructions of the Court. ... . The verdict you return must be written on a separate sheet of paper signed by the foreman. Your verdict should be written in one of the following forms: (1) "We, the Jury, unanimously find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the following facts existed at the time of the commission of the capital murder: (List or itemize all facts found, if any, from the list under Section A [ Enmund factors] of this instruction which you unanimously agree exist in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt). Next, we, the Jury, unanimously find that the aggravating circumstance(s) of: (List or itemize all of the aggravating circumstance(s) presented in Section B of this instruction which you unanimously agree exist in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt) is/are sufficient to imp”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.