Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 75 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he 'heat of passion must render the mind incapable of forming a design to effect death before the defense of manslaughter is established.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Black v. State · Allen v. State

2. “‘Jury nullification’ is the jury’s exercise of its inherent ‘power to bring in a verdict [of acquittal], in the teeth of both law and facts.’ Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 , 41 S.Ct. 53, 54 , 65 L,Ed. 185 (1920). In capital cases, an instruction on this issue would inform the jury of its right to return a sentence of life no matter how great the weight of evidence supporting the circumstances. However, the courts have almost uniformly held that a criminal defendant is not entitled to such an instruction. See, e.g., United States v. Wiley, 503 F.2d 106 , 107 n. 4 (8th Cir.1974). But see Washington v. Watkins, 655 F.2d 1346 , 1374 n. 54 (5th Cir.1981). The rationale for this majority view is eloquently explained in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1130-37 (D.C.Cir.1972). Although a trial judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, give such an instruction, it is not error for him to refuse the request.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bryson v. State · Fox v. State

3. “First, there are some cases in which prejudice will be presumed, if the fact pattern reveals "the influence of the news media, either in the community at large or in the courtroom itself, pervaded the proceedings." The key to this standard appears to be the "solemnity and sobriety to which a defendant is entitled in a system that subscribes to any notion of fairness and rejects the verdict of the mob." If the facts are not sufficiently egregious to give rise to the presumption, the so-called "totality of the circumstances will be examined to determine whether the defendant received a trial which was "fundamentally fair." A review of the case should focus on the voir dire statements of the individual jurors, voir dire statistics, and the community atmosphere as reflected in the news media. (Citations omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lambert v. State · Parker v. State