613 So. 2d 412 - Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On the afternoon of January 13, 1990 two teenagers walking down a dirt road in rural Duval County found a crowbar, some broken false teeth, a bloody shirt, and some blank checks, with the name Ronald Willis printed on them, that also had blood on them. One of the boys returned home and told his mother what they had found, and she called the sheriffs office. Also on the 13th Willis’ mother called his ex-wife to see if she knew of Willis’ whereabouts. The ex-wife did not, and she and her sister began driving around looking for him. They found Willis’ truck at a motel, parked near it, and started calling his name. A small child was in the truck, and a man identifying himself as the child’s father removed the child and pointed out Ronald Clark and John Hatch as the people who had been driving the truck. The ex-wife took the keys and locked the truck while her sister went to telephone the police. Clark approached the ex-wife, grabbed her, and tried to take the keys. When she kicked him, he ran away. The sister ran after Clark and noticed that he was wearing Willis’ cowboy boots. Clark and Hatch ran off before the police arrived. They had been identified, however, and the police arrested Hatch in Nassau County on January 20, 1990. Hatch described the events of January 12 to 13 as follows. When he arrived home after work on January 12, Clark was at his house. They decided to hitchhike to Jacksonville to shoot pool. Along the way they shot at signs and beer bottles with a pistol Hatc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 So. 3d 880 - Clark v. State

2. “Clark also argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider the mitigating evidence properly and to find that several mitigators had been established. The record is clear, however, that the trial court considered thé mitigating evidence, including the psychiatric reports as noted in the sentencing order. The trial court conscientiously performed its duty and decided that no: mitigators had been establishéd. The record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the court’s conclusion that Clark’s death sentence is appropriate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Attorney General

3. “fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State