Pope v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “limit the aggravating circumstances eligible for consideration to those specified in the...statute.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dumas v. State · Kevin Andrew Schuler v. State of Indiana

2. “[Aln instruetion directed to the testimony of one witness erroneously invades the province of the jury when the instruction intimates an opinion on the credibility of a witness or the weight to be given to his testimony.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ludy v. State · Tyrice J. Halliburton v. State of Indiana

3. “The court finds that the aggravating circumstance alleged by the state, namely that the defendant did intentionally kill the vietim in Count I while committing or attempting to commit robbery was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence at trial showed that the defendant and his accomplice entered the used car business of the victims in Counts I and III with the intent to commit a robbery. Each was armed with a handgun. The defendant demanded money from the victim in Count I, then shot him several times at close range. The defendant also shot the vie-tim in Count III, who is now paralyzed. A charge of Attempted Murder was not filed as to that victim, but could have been sustained by the evidence. The defendant fired his weapon at another man who was present, but who escaped. The evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was willing to kill anyone present to facilitate the robbery. The jury, after being instructed that the state must prove the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and that any mitigating circumstances are outweighed by aggravating circumstance, returned a Verdict that recommends Life Imprisonment Without Parole be imposed upon the defendant. The court has examined each of the mitigating cireumstances that may be considered, pursuant to I.C. 35-50-2-9(c) and finds the [sic] those referred to in (C)(1) throrough [sic] (7) do not exist and that any mitigation shown in (C)(®) is outweighed by the aggravating circumstance. In s”

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