Pietri v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 17 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On August 18, 1988, Pietri walked away from the Lantana Community Correctional Work Release Center. At the time, he was restricted to the center’s grounds while he awaited transfer to a more secure facility. After his escape, Pietri began a four-day binge of using cocaine. He testified that during this time he committed burglaries to support his drug use. On August 22, he ran out of drugs. Driving a pickup truck he had stolen the day before, Pietri went to a house, broke in, and stole items including a 9-mm semiautomatic firearm and a .38-caliber revolver. After the burglary, a witness saw Officer Chappell sitting on his motorcycle, apparently watching for speeding motorists. The witness saw a man driving a silver pickup truck speed by Chappell, and the officer gave chase. The driver stopped after about a mile. Chappell motioned for the driver to move forward to avoid blocking traffic, and the driver complied. Witnesses testified that as Chappell approached the truck, his gun was in its holster. When the officer was within two to four feet of the truck the driver shot him once in the chest. A forensics firearm examiner testified that Chappell was shot from a distance of three to eight feet. He testified that the casing of the bullet that killed Chappell matched the casings of 9-mm bullets provided by the burglary victim. Thus, the firearms examiner concluded, the bullets had been fired from a weapon taken in the burglary. After firing the gun, the driver sped off, and Chappel”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pietri v. Florida Department of Corrections

2. “The aggravating circumstances that you may consider are limited to any of the following that are established by the evidence. Number one: The crime for which Norberto Pietri is to be sentenced was committed while he was under sentence of imprisonment. Number two: The crime for which the Defendant is to be sentenced was committed while he was engaged in flight after committing or attempting to commit the crime of burglary. Number three: The crime for which the Defendant is to be sentenced was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody. Number four: The crime for which the Defendant is to be sentenced was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws. Number five: The crime for which the Defendant is to be sentenced was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner, without any pretense of moral or legal justification. This factor requires a heightened degree of premeditation beyond the premeditation required for first-degree murder. Calculate means to plan the nature of beforehand, to think out, design, prepare or adapt by forethought or careful plan. Six: The victim of the crimes was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 885 So. 2d 245 - Pietri v. State

3. “Pietri claims the trial court should have excused juror Howard Carroll for cause because he said during voir dire that he would automatically vote for the death penalty if there was a verdict of first-degree murder with a police officer as a victim. The defense challenged Carroll for cause specifically because of his views on the death penalty and renewed that motion before the penalty phase began. After Pietri's counsel initially challenged Carroll, the judge explained the system of aggravating and mitigating factors, and Carroll said he could weigh those factors in making a sentencing recommendation. Pietri's counsel challenged Carroll for cause because of his views on the death penalty. But when he sought additional peremptory challenges, he failed to identify Carroll as a juror he would have struck peremptorily. Thus, this issue has not been preserved for our review. See Trotter, 576 So.2d at 693 . The fact that Pietri again challenged Carroll for cause before the penalty phase does not preserve this issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 885 So. 2d 245 - Pietri v. State