State v. Griffin’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2000 · most notably Bottoson v. Florida (1984), State v. Mallett (1987)
6 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Rideout v. United States · Godfrey v. Georgia · Innkeepers of New Castle, Inc. v. Maley · Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration · Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The jury found that this murder involved "torture or depravity of mind" and that the murder was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman." Section 565.032.2(7). Murders involving similar levels of depravity have consistently resulted in the death penalty. [case citations omitted] Here, appellant and others coolly and deliberately discussed potential victims, how the death of each would enhance the Leisure family influence, and calmly voted which to kill. The murder was carefully planned, prepared, the victim stalked, and the plan implemented with neither remorse nor regret. Appellant was an integral part of the entire sordid episode, personally surveilling the victim and planting the bomb. Contrary to appellant's suggestion and only because cooler heads prevailed, was the bomb not exploded in the church parking lot, claiming another victim. The victim's body was blasted apart. Pieces of his flesh were scattered all over an interstate highway. Pieces of his body rained down on other motorists. A careful attempt to hide and destroy evidence followed. Appellant's actions were conscienceless and pitiless; they were the product of a depraved mind, a mind which knew right from wrong but which chose to kill to further the economic ends of his family. The death penalty was neither disproportionate nor excessive. Appellant knowingly created a risk of death to more than one person by means of a device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person. Se”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leisure v. Bowersox“The essential test for admissibility of a spontaneous statement or excited utterance is neither the time nor place of its utterance but whether it was made under such circumstances as to indicate it is trustworthy. The rationale of this exception to the hearsay rule is that where the statement is made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses as a result of the shock produced by the event, the utterance may be taken as expressing the true belief of the de-clarant. (citation omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fischer“[w]here the evidence, as here, is partially direct and partially circumstantial, it is not necessary to give a circumstantial evidence instruction and the test as to submissibility is not that of a purely circumstantial evidence case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. O'DELL
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.