742 So. 2d 225 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]ssues that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not are noncognizable claims through collateral attack”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Consalvo v. State · Caniff v. Moore

2. “The testimony reflects that Hall has an IQ of 60; he suffers from organic brain damage, chronic psychosis, a speech impediment, and a learning disability; he is functionally illiterate; and he has a short-term memory equivalent to that of a first grader. The defense’s four expert witnesses who testified regarding Hall’s mental condition stated that his handicaps would have affected him at the time of the crime. As the trial judge noted in the resentencing order, Freddie Lee Hall was “raised under the most horrible family circumstances imaginable.” ' Indeed, the trial judge found that Hall had established substantial mitigation. The judge wrote that the evidence conclusively demonstrated that Hall “may have been suffering from mental and emotional disturbances and may have been, to some extent, unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” Additionally, the judge found that Hall suffers from organic brain damage, has been mentally retarded all of his life, suffers from mental illness, suffered tremendous emotional deprivation and disturbances throughout his life, suffered tremendous physical abuse and torture as a child, and has learning disabilities and a distinct speech impedi ment that adversely affected his development. Hall’s mental deficiency as an adult is not surprising. The sixteenth of seventeen children, Hall was tortured by his mother and abused by neighbors. Various relatives testified that Hall’s mother”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 109 So. 3d 704 - Hall v. State

3. “In the instructions in a little bit the judge is going to give you a definition you can use in deciding whether something is mitigating. As I said, it's up to you, mitigating circumstances are up to you to decide whether they're mitigating or not. The judge is going to tell you that these mitigating circumstances are these factors, including any aspect of the defendant's life which may be considered as attenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability for the offense. That's what you have to think of in terms of is there anything mitigating about the defendant's age that attenuates or reduces the degree of mental or emotional culpability for the offense? No, there just isn't. That's not a mitigating circumstance. I submit that you should disregard it. The second area is basically allows you to consider any aspect of the defendant's character, record, background, or any circumstance of the offense as possible mitigation. First of all, there is no circumstance of this offense, I submit, that is remotely mitigating or which remotely attenuates or reduces the degree of moral culpability. Nothing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Darling v. State