Carroll v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The jury did not have before [it] the presentence report, background information and history of the defendant, his family, education and work history. The jury was not aware of the fact that the defendant had served a period of incarceration and had just been released for a very short time when he obtained a weapon and committed this intentional murder during a robbery. The jury did not view and was not privy to the expression of the pain of the victim's family expressed at the sentencing hearing before the Court. "`Although this Court always gives, and did in this case give, great weight and consideration to a jury's recommendation as to punishment, considering the above, the Court found it appropriate to overrule the jury's recommendation of life without parole.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 852 So. 2d 833 - Ex Parte Carroll

2. “"[T]he trial judge in this case expressly found that Carroll `[had] no significant history of prior criminal activity' and expressly acknowledged that he could not consider, `to negate this statutory mitigating circumstance,' the fact that, just four months before the robbery murder, Carroll had been released from the penitentiary, `where [he] was serving time on four youthful-offender convictions involving alleged burglaries while armed.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 852 So. 2d 833 - Ex Parte Carroll

3. “"Given the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without parole; the recommendation of the victim's family that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole; the fact that the defendant was 17 years old when he committed the crime; and the circumstances of the crime (particularly that the defendant made no attempt to kill the witnesses to the crime), ... the sentence of death is excessive and disproportionate."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 852 So. 2d 833 - Ex Parte Carroll