727 So. 2d 193 - Hildwin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in order to establish this aggravator the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that `the murder was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to obtain money, property or other financial gain.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 857 So. 2d 845 - Spann v. State · 803 So. 2d 629 - Hertz v. State

2. “the circumstantial evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis which might negate the aggravating factor.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 843 So. 2d 856 - Harris v. State · 918 So. 2d 181 - Brooks v. State

3. “While the trial court accorded “some weight” to a variety of statutory and nonstatutory mitigators, the trial court explained at length why it did not find the psychological mitigating evidence to be particularly compelling: There is also the problem of [the psychological experts] not having talked to sufficient people who knew the defendant around the time of the crime. Dr. Berland testified that he had talked to no one who knew the defendant after 1979, and thus didn’t talk to any people who had been around the defendant close to the time of the murder. John Hildwin, who presented perhaps the most emotional testimony as to the abuse his brother suffered as a child, indicated that he had not seen the defendant since 1971. Next, it should be noted that the experts, though generally agreeing with each other, subtly differ with one another in their analysis. Dr. Maher opines that the defendant had an impaired ability to appreciate wrongness and conform his conduct based on a severe mental defect. Dr. Berland does not talk specifically about the defendant’s ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions and to conform his action to the requirements of law, but is of the opinion that the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the crime. Dr. Berland believes that the defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the crime; however, Dr. Berland was not able to say that the defendant was under the influence of “extreme” emotional distu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 84 So. 3d 180 - Hildwin v. State