Moore v. Maggio’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 federal appellate · 9 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) He received ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of his trial; (2) He received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of the trial; (3) The Louisiana Supreme Court failed to engage in a meaningful appellate review designed to ensure that death was the appropriate sentence; (4) One of the three aggravating circumstances found by the jury was unsupported by the evidence; (5) The trial court’s exclusion of jurors who were unambiguously opposed to imposing the death penalty resulted in a biased and unfair jury; (6) The trial court gave the jury inadequate instructions concerning imposition of the death penalty; and (7) The death penalty in Louisiana, as well as in the United States, is applied in a racially discriminatory and arbitrary manner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. Butler

2. “The United States Supreme Court has thus far declined to require that the jury must be instructed of the narrow construction of a potentially overbroad aggravating circumstance, such as whether the crime is “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.” Instead, the Court has looked to state appellate courts “to weed out those cases in which an overly broad construction is applied by the jury____” See Williams v. Maggio, 679 F.2d 381, 410 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) (Randall, J., dissenting) cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1214 , 103 S.Ct. 3553 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1399 (1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 631 F. Supp. 274 - Evans v. Thigpen

3. “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient ... Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. J.A. Avery, Jr. v. Raymond K. Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections