Breedlove v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 34 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even if the trial court had found mitigating circumstances in additional testimony from lay witnesses, the three aggravating factors we have previously affirmed overwhelm whatever mitigation the testimony of Breedlove's friends and family members could provide.... [T]he three aggravating factors set forth in Breedlove's sentencing [prior violent felony convictions, murder in the course of a felony (burglary), and HAC] overwhelm potential mitigating factors presented by witnesses at the 1992 postconviction hearing.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 801 So. 2d 59 - Stewart v. State · 995 So. 2d 329 - Stein v. State

2. “[P]resentation of each of these witnesses would have allowed cross-examination and rebuttal evidence that would have countered any value [the defendant] might have gained from the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 995 So. 2d 329 - Stein v. State · 707 So. 2d 688 - Robinson v. State

3. “At the postconviction hearing, the court heard testimony from the three assistant public defenders who represented Breedlove, from family members and friends of Breedlove, from three psychologists who had examined Breedlove for the defense, and from a psychiatrist who had testified for the State. Finger and Levine testified that Levine was hampered in preparing for the penalty phase by the trial court’s denial of a time extension between the end of the guilt phase and the beginning of the penalty phase. Levine testified that he had never before handled representation in a first-degree murder trial. Levine further testified that because the responsibility for the penalty phase was “thrust upon [him] on a Friday afternoon,” the resulting lack of preparation caused him to “not present effective assistance of counsel.” This confession of ineffectiveness because of lack of preparation was somewhat contradicted by the record, which reflects evidence that Levine had handled the representation of Breedlove in motions directed to the penalty phase in advance of the trial. In addition, Zenobi testified that he had been present during the penalty phase and that Levine was an excellent lawyer. Of the three psychologists who testified for the defense at the postconviction hearing, only two had testified at the original penalty phase. Both of those psychologists testified that even with the additional information provided to them in preparation for the postconviction hearing, the opinions ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 74 F. Supp. 2d 1226 - Breedlove v. Moore