869 So. 2d 995 - Simmons v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 17 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “has not submitted sufficient evidence of a breach of the duty of counsel to investigate and present mitigation evidence as described by the United States Supreme Court in Wiggins v. Smith .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 882 So. 2d 135 - Bishop v. State · 945 So. 2d 326 - Howard v. State

2. “The Court has also found the death penalty not to be proportionate for an aider and abetter who is not the actual killer in several other cases. Smith v. State, 729 So.2d 1191 (Miss.1998); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242 (Miss.1996); Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824 (Miss.1995); Abram v. State, 606 So.2d 1015 (Miss. 1992); Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645 (Miss.1983). Simmons also cites Randall v. State, 806 So.2d 185 (Miss.2001), where this Court found that, where there was no proof as to who actually killed the victim, and the other co-defendant received sentences of less than death, and the jury only found that Randall contemplated that lethal force would be used and nothing else, then the death sentence was disproportionate. While Simmons's case does have similarities to Randall , [sic] the case at bar, as this Court noted on direct appeal, the jury found that Simmons intended the killing of Jeffery Wolfe to take place, in addition to finding that Simmons contemplated that lethal force would be employed. This Court specifically found that under these circumstances the death penalty was not disproportionate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 913 So. 2d 913 - Le v. State

3. “Failure by a prisoner to raise objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors either in fact or law which were capable of determination at trial and/or on direct appeal, regardless of whether such are based on the laws and the Constitution of the state of Mississippi or of the United States, shall constitute a waiver thereof and shall be procedurally barred, but the court may upon a showing of cause and actual prejudice grant relief from the waiver.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Byrom v. State