826 So. 2d 956 - Ocha v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Proper review requires this Court to scrutinize the plea to ensure that the defendant was made aware of the consequences of his plea, was apprised of the constitutional rights he was waiving, and pled guilty voluntarily.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Winkles v. State · Mesac Damas v. State of Florida

2. “a thoughtful, deliberate proportionality review to consider the totality of the circumstances in a case, and to compare it with other capital cases.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 862 So. 2d 687 - Owen v. State · 841 So. 2d 362 - Lynch v. State

3. “Because of the tremendous responsibilities placed on the trial court and this Court in death penalty cases, rather than leave the appointment of counsel to the trial court’s discretion on a ease-by-case basis, I would thus adopt a prospective rule that would provide for the appointment of special counsel to present available mitigation for the benefit of the jury, the trial court and this Court in order to assist the judiciary in performing our statutory and constitutional obligations. This procedure, of course, would not prevent the defendant himself or herself from arguing in favor of the death penalty. Adoption of this procedure would serve to promote several important interests critical to the integrity of the process: (1) it would assist any advisory jury in making a more informed sentencing recommendation of either death or life and in fulfilling its statutory obligation to weigh mitigating and aggravating circumstances under section 924.141(2)(b); (2) it would assist the trial court in making a more informed decision as to whether to impose the death sentence by ensuring that the court has before it the available mitigating evidence; and (3) it would facilitate this Court’s constitutionally mandated obligation to review each death sentence for proportionality. I also believe that adoption of this procedure would serve the important ad ditional goal of promoting finality when a sentence of death is imposed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 164 So. 3d 1183 - David Kelsey Sparre v. State of Florida