Rouster v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 31 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rouster argues that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to present expert evidence to show the killings were committed- in an act of self-defense. Self-defense is not available, however, as an affirmative defense when one is engaged in the commission of a robbery. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-3-2 (d)(l) (West 1986). Rouster’s proposed evidence (expert testimony meant to indicate the Reases’ wounds were consistent with shots fired in self-defense) does not affect the evidence necessarily believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Rouster and Williams were- both engaged in robbery at the time the killings occurred. Thus, even if we assume Rouster was indeed acting to protect himself (an assumption that is belied by virtually ■ all of the evidence), he is barred from asserting self-defense since the jury found he was engaged in robbery at the time of the killings. Trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to offer’self-defense evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rastafari v. Anderson · 117 F. Supp. 2d 788 - Rastafari v. Anderson

2. “In Simmons [v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994) ], the Court held that “where the defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits the defendant’s release on parole, due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible.” Id. at 156 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 . Rouster reads this case for the broad proposition that a defendant’s due process rights are violated whenever there is a possibility a defendant may be sentenced to death and the jury is not instructed on the possibility of concurrent or consecutive sentences. Rouster’s argument is unavailing. Simmons was handed down more than a year after we decided Rouster’s case on appeal. Because Simmons was unavailable to either Rouster’s trial or appellate counsel, we cannot say their respective performances were deficient for their failure to make a claim based on Simmons , even if we accept Rouster’s reading of that case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 F. Supp. 2d 788 - Rastafari v. Anderson

3. “Whenever two (2) or more defendants have been joined for trial in the same indictment or information and one (1) or more defendants move for a separate trial because another defendant has made an out-of-court statement which makes reference to the moving defendant but is not admissible as evidence against him, the court shall require the prosecutor to elect: (1) a joint trial at which the statement is not admitted into evidence; (2) a joint trial at which the statement is admitted into evidence only after all references to the moving defendant have been effectively deleted; or (3) a separate trial for the moving defendant. In all other cases, upon motion of the defendant or the prosecutor, the court shall order a separate trial of defendants whenever the court determines that a separate trial is necessary to protect a defendant’s right to a speedy trial or is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of a defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fayson v. State