State v. Cobb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As construed, the Eighth Amendment requires that safeguards be in place to prevent the wanton and freakish imposition of the death penalty... .Among the approved safeguards is the requirement of proof of specific aggravating circumstances and an absence of mitigating circumstances that justify the death penalty... .In noncapital cases, there is no such requirement. Once guilt of a crime is determined, a sentence of imprisonment is ordinarily neither cruel nor unusual. Thus, strict sentencing guidelines to prevent Eighth Amendment violations are not implicated. The accused in a noncapital case is not being twice put at risk of a wholly different form of punishment by being resentenced. No constitutional mandate of proof beyond reasonable doubt exists with respect to the range of sentencing in such cases. The statutory procedure for assessing punishment, the factors weighing on punishment and the eviden-tiary burden to establish those factors are largely matters of legislative discretion. The constitutional double jeopardy prohibition does not speak to sentencing except in capital cases.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Edwards · Milner v. State

2. “[I]t is well settled that “[rjelief should be rarely granted on assertion of plain error to matters contained in closing argument, for trial strategy looms as an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.” State v. Wood, 719 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 1986). Even if a timely objection had been raised, it was not error to permit the remarks. A prosecutor may legitimately argue that the jury should “send a message” that criminal conduct will not be tolerated or should be severely punished. State v. Olds, 603 S.W.2d 501, 511 (Mo. banc 1980).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kinder · State v. Lambert

3. “[R]eversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.... [I]t is a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”

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