Gilliard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to overcome the successive writ bar of Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27 (9), [Lockett] must demonstrate that there have been intervening decisions from either this Court or the U.S. Supreme Court which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lockett v. State · 656 So. 2d 68 - Lockett v. State

2. “as a matter of state law ... intervening decisions which would except the application of the successive writ bar of the Post-Conviction Relief Act and Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 22”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 635 So. 2d 802 - Wiley v. State · 638 So. 2d 1285 - Stringer v. State

3. “The Court instructs the jury that in considering whether the capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; heinous means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; atrocious means outrageously wicked and vile; and cruel means designed to inflict a high degree of pain with indifference to, or enjoyment of the suffering of others. In order for you to find in this case the aggravating circumstance that the crime was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, you must unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the capital offense was accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of capital offenses ÔÇö that is, that the crime was conscienceless, pitiless, or unnecessarily torturous to the victim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carr v. State