682 So. 2d 539 - Strausser v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2017
7 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 322 So. 2d 908 - Tedder v. State · 609 So. 2d 600 - Burns v. State · Rivers v. State · Dolinsky v. State
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is a well established principle of law in this state that an otherwise qualified witness who is not a medical expert can testify about a person's mental condition, provided the testimony is based on personal knowledge or observation.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“there was vast mitigation to support the jury's recommendation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court finds the evidence in mitigation is minimal compared to the magnitude of the crime that has been committed by the defendant. In the final analysis, the mitigating circumstances found to exist have no relationship to the crime committed to such a degree that the jury could reasonably conclude life is a proper penalty. Furthermore, the jury's decision during the guilt phase of this proceeding essentially disregards any theory that the death of Anita Keen was accidental. If the jury believed that the victim's death was the result of premeditated murder, then the cold and calculated plan to kill her must necessarily outweigh the mitigating circumstances presented by the defense. This Court can only conclude that the jury's hasty recommendation of life indicates that it was based on something other than the sound reasoned judgment required in such cases. Had the jury considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the facts suggesting a sentence of death are so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ. The mitigating evidence is wholly insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances in support of a life sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Keen v. State
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.