Rojem v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 39 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the mere undeveloped assertions that the services of these experts are needed is not sufficient to qualify for funds. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323-24, n. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 2637 n. 1; 86 L.Ed.2d 231 , 236 n. 1 (1986). Second, this Court has previously held that scientific evidence is ordinarily not vulnerable to inaccurate resolution and in itself does not ordinarily call for a defense expert. Plunkett v. State, 719 P.2d 834 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1019 , 107 S.Ct. 675 , 93 L.Ed.2d 725 (1986). There, as here, defense counsel cross-examined the experts called by the State and was able to elicit the limitations of the tests and examination performed. Due process was not endangered by the absence of a second set of experts. 753 P.2d at 364 .”

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

2. “As used in these instructions, the term, "heinous" means extreme (sic) wicked or shockingly evil; "atrocious" means outrageously wicked and vile, "cruel" means pitiless, or designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to or enjoyment of, the suffering of others. The phrase "especially heinous, atrocious, or curel (sic)" is directed to those crimes where the death of the victim was preceded by torture of the victim or serious physical abuse. In order for you to consider the statutory aggravating circumstances (sic) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel you must first unanimously find that the victim's death was preceded by torture or serious physical harm.”

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

3. “Mere exposure to publicity surrounding a criminal case simply does not demonstrate prejudice. Media coverage extends to most homicides, particularly capital cases. As stated many times by this Court, a defendant is not entitled to jurors ignorant of his ease. Wooldridge v. State, 659 P.2d 943 (Okl.Cr.1983). “It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751, 756 (1961).”

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