Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 47 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Jordan argues that he has been incarcerated on death row from the time the crime was committed in this case, in 1976, until 1991, and then again in 1998, when the life sentence was vacated, until now. He claims that he has suffered psychological trauma waiting for his execution and that there is nothing gained by the State from 22 years of needless infliction of pain and suffering. He indicates that the United States Supreme Court has held that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment when it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment, i.e., retribution and deterrence, and is nothing more than needless imposition of pain and suffering. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 335 , 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2956 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256, 289 (1989).”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wilcher v. State · King v. State

2. “aggravator did not properly limit the aggravator. Sentencing Instruction SP-2 stated: The Court instructs the jury that in considering whether the capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel: heinous means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; atrocious means outrageously wicked and vile; and cruel means designed to inflict a high degree of pain with indifference to, or even enjoyment of the suffering of others. An especially heinous, atrocious or cruel capital offense is one accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of capital murders”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jordan v. Epps · 912 So. 2d 800 - Jordan v. State

3. “1) Richard Jordan committed the capital murder while engaged in the crime of kidnaping Edwina Marter. 2) Richard Jordan committed the capital murder for pecuniary gain. 3) Richard Jordan committed a capital offense which was especially heinous, atrocious & cruel & whether the murder was conscienceless & pitiless. In support of this circumstance the State claims that Edwina Marter was murdered in execution style & that she was subjected to extreme mental torture caused by her abduction from the home wherein she was forced to abandon her unattended three year old child & removed to a wooded area at which time she was shot in the back of the head by Jordan. exist beyond a reasonable doubt & are sufficient to us to impose the death penalty and that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to out weigh the aggravating circumstances and we further find unanimously that the defendant should suffer death.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jordan v. Epps · 912 So. 2d 800 - Jordan v. State