Ferrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Execution-style killings are not generally HAC unless the state has presented other evidence to show some physical or mental torture of the victim.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rimmer v. State · 938 So. 2d 451 - Ibar v. State

2. “The aggravating circumstance specified by Florida Statute Section 921.141(5)(i) has been established in that the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification. The essential facts justifying the conclusion that this statutory factor has been established have been outlined in part. This was a crime of heightened calculation and premeditation. The defendant could have stopped at kidnapping and robbery. He could have taken the defendant's motor vehicle and other valuables and left James Coon to pursue his life as an exemplary citizen of this community. Instead the defendant confined James Coon in his own motor vehicle and forced James Coon to contemplate his death while the defendant decided what to do with him. Certainly the defendant had more than ample time to reflect upon his actions, and there was absolutely no suggestion that he was under the influence of any intoxicants or the domination or pressure of another. Indeed it appears that the defendant was with his brother, his accomplice, and they were celebrating the defendant's brother's sixteenth (16th) birthday. This was an outrageous crime without even a scintilla of evidence suggesting moral or legal justification. This statutory aggravating circumstance was established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 723 So. 2d 148 - Alston v. State

3. “Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1981). Clearly, under the circumstances set forth in this record, evidence that Hartley had robbed the victim in this case two days before the murder was not similar fact evidence, and, thus, was inadmissible under section 90.404(2)(a). This does not mean, however, that evidence of other crimes is never admissible unless it is similar. Rather, evidence of other crimes that are”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 686 So. 2d 1316 - Hartley v. State