Murray v. Schriro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “(1) A detective's joking about the Federal Bureau of Investigations [FBI] while testifying. The objection to the FBI comment was sustained based on irrelevance and the jury was instructed to disregard it. (2) Discussion by officers in the courthouse library that defendants were using the "fecal defense"-throwing up anything and hoping something sticks. The trial court thoroughly probed this issue and concluded that there had been no discussion of the evidence and that the jurors were unlikely to have heard the discussion. (3) The prosecutor's alleged joking with a witness in front of the jury about whether a bartender at the Temple Bar had gone fishing in Mexico. Defendant waived this issue for failure to object at trial. See State v. White , 115 Ariz. 199 , 564 P.2d 888 , 892 (1977). (4) The prosecutor's joking with someone while on a cigarette break about being subpoenaed, while two jurors stood nearby. The prosecutor himself brought the incident to the court's attention; neither defendant objected [n]or moved for a mistrial in the trial court. Thus, defendant waived this issue. (5) In closing argument, the prosecutor's referring to defendants as "the boys from Alabama." Defendant waived this issue by failing to object at trial. See State v. Hankins , 141 Ariz. 217 , 686 P.2d 740 , 747 (1984). (6) The prosecutor's stating that a .25 caliber bullet found on the premises had been fired by one of the brothers. The argument was permissible because a ballistics expert found that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murray v. Schriro

2. “• Claim 8 (footprint evidence); • Claim 9 (impeachment of footprint expert); • Claim 20 (viability of aggravating factors); • Claim 21 (application of aggravating factors); • Claim 23 (lack of funding for additional experts); • Claim 24 (unconstitutionality of death penalty); • Claim 25 (unconstitutionality of death penalty); • Claim 26 (unfair balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors); • Claim 27 (vagueness of heinous, cruel or depraved aggravating factor); • Claim 28 (lack of meaningful review of sentence); • Claim 29 (limitation on nonstatutory mitigation evidence); • Claim 30 (IAC-failure to impeach footprint expert); • Claim 31 (IAC-failure to move for severance); • Claim 32 (IAC-failure to secure experts); • Claim 33 (IAC-failure to prepare for Aggravation/Mitigation Hearing); • Claim 35 (violation of rights under International Law); • Claim 36 (physical and psychological torture during execution); • Claim 39 (improper consideration of evidence regarding aggravating factors); • Claim 44 (irreconcilable conflict with attorney); • Claim 46 (IAC-failure to call mental health expert); and • Claim 53 (failure to channel sentencing discretion).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murray v. Schriro

3. “Id . (citation omitted). Because there was a premeditation finding, Roger's specific intent was not in doubt. See id . n. Cooperation Roger complained that the trial court failed to take his cooperation into consideration. See id. Roger relied on the fact that he refrained from shooting the police officer who apprehended him. See id. The Arizona Supreme Court held that refraining from killing one more person cannot possibly demonstrate cooperation as a mitigating factor. See id. 6. Weighing Aggravation and Mitigation The Arizona Supreme Court described the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murray v. Schriro