579 F. Supp. 2d 1246 - Cole v. Roper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““First, the issue of Petitioner’s behavior while in jail was not disputed, nor was it a point emphasized by the State. Unlike other cases, the prosecutor here never argued to the jury that Petitioner should get death over life in prison because he would be dangerous to other prisoners. For example, in Skipper , the prosecutor argued that the defendant would be a disciplinary problem while in prison and that he would likely rape other prisoners. 476 U.S. at 3 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 . The Court noted that this argument by the prosecutor made evidence of a peaceful transition to prison life especially relevant and mitigating. Id. at 5 n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669 . The prosecutor in this case did not specifically rely on a prediction of future dangerousness in asking for the death penalty. “Second, the three jail workers would have testified to Petitioner’s good behavior while incarcerated, but they all admitted to not being aware of Petitioner’s prior conviction for failing to return to confinement from work release. The State likely would have raised this issue with the witnesses on cross-examination, as it did in the PCR [postconviction relief] hearing. This evidence would have diminished any weight the jurors would have given to the jailers’ testimony. In fact, the jurors might have given no weight at all to the testimony because they may have considered Petitioner’s behavior while awaiting trial — a time when a prisoner has an incentive to behave responsibly in anticipation of his behavi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James v. State

2. ““Under Skipper , this evidence would undoubtedly have been admissible, but the question before me is whether counsel can be found ineffective for failing to introduce it. The Eighth Circuit has cautioned that Skipper cannot be read to require counsel to present all possible mitigating evidence. See Skillicom v. Luebbers, 475 F.3d 965, 976 (8th Cir.2007).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 198 So. 3d 530 - Larry Dunaway v. State of Alabama.