604 So. 2d 799 - Marshall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 39 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “scrutinize such evidence carefully for prejudicial effect, particularly when less graphic photos are available to illustrate the same point.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Philmore v. State · 878 So. 2d 1246 - Douglas v. State

2. “self-defense is legally unavailable to a person who `[i]s attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible felony.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 739 So. 2d 553 - Young v. State · 761 So. 2d 1055 - Freeman v. State

3. “Marshall ... alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Marshall to death where the jury had made a recommendation of life imprisonment. It is well settled in Florida that a judge imposing sentence in a capital case must accord the jury recommendation great weight. E.g., Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 , 910 (Fla.1975). Where a jury has recommended a life sentence, the court must follow that recommendation unless “the facts suggesting a sentence of death [are] so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.” Id. Where the record contains no evidence supporting a life recommendation, the trial court does not err in declining to follow that recommendation. In this case, the record contains insufficient evidence to reasonably support the jury’s recommendation of life. Marshall’s father was unable to attend the trial, but the defense and prosecution stipulated that he would have testified that Marshall did well in school until his early teens when his older brother influenced him to run the streets and break the law; that Marshall’s mother did not discipline Marshall and allowed him to believe there would be no consequences for his behavior; and that Marshall’s father loved him and requested a life sentence for his son. The trial court determined these facts were not mitigating, but did find Marshall’s behavior at trial as well as his entering prison at a young age to be mitigating. We find no error in the court’s assessment of this ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marshall v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections · 911 So. 2d 1129 - Marshall v. Crosby