Stevens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 56 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “focuses on the status of the victim, arising from the need to give heightened protection to younger children and to punish more severely those who harm them.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Overstreet v. State · 492 F. Supp. 2d 928 - Stevens v. McBride

2. “Stevens makes several claims about prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire. One allegation arises from the prosecutor’s display and reading of the entire death penalty statute, including its list of aggravating circumstances, to each panel of prospective jurors. The record discloses that this occurred as the prosecutor explained the different steps through which the statute requires a capital trial to go, and then asked the prospective jurors if they understood the process and had any questions or problems with it. Stevens failed to object, however, thereby forfeiting appellate review of any alleged error arising from the prosecutor’s actions. In his reply brief, Stevens responds to the State’s claim of waiver by inviting this Court to consider the prosecutor’s actions under the “fundamental error” doctrine. Even if we were to consider improper the reading, displaying, and explaining the death penalty statute to prospective jurors during voir dire, such actions could not be said to so prejudice the rights of a defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. This is particularly true in Stevens’ case, where the court informed the jury several times of the State’s burden to prove the existence of at least one of the charged aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and the specific findings in the jury’s recommendation indicate that only the charged aggravating factors were considered in the balancing process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Murphy v. State · 492 F. Supp. 2d 928 - Stevens v. McBride

3. ““[w]hether a prosecutor’s argument constitutes misconduct is measured by reference to case law and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The gravity of peril is measured by the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury’s decision rather than the degree of impropriety of the conduct.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexander K. Jerden v. State of Indiana · McBride v. State