State v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 102 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “INSTRUCTION NO. 6 In determining the punishment to be assessed against Brown for the murder of Janet Perkins, you must first unanimously determine whether one or more of the following aggravating circumstances exists: Whether Brown was convicted of Assault and Battery With the Intent To Gratify Sexual Desires on June 28,1973 in the Criminal Court of Marion County of Indiana. Whether the murder of Janet Perkins involved torture or depravity of mind and that as a result thereof it was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman. Whether the murder of Janet Perkins was committed for the purpose avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement of Brown. Whether Janet Perkins was a potential witness in the investigation of an assault of Janet Perkins and was killed as a result of her status as a potential witness. Whether the murder of Janet Perkins was committed while the defendant was engaged in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate rape, sodomy or kidnapping. [[Image here]] ... if you do not unanimously find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the foregoing circumstances exists, you must return a verdict fixing punishment of the defendant at imprisonment for life by the Division of Corrections without eligibility for probation or parole. INSTRUCTION NO. 7 If you have found beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the aggravating circumstances submitted in Instruction No. 6 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown

2. “The motion court clearly erred overruling Tim was denied his rights to due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, a fair trial, a fair and impartial jury, and effective assistance of counsel, U.S. Const. Amends. VI, VIII, and XIV, when counsel failed to call Judge Cundiff at the juror misconduct hearing before Judge Schneider to testify after he told the jurors Tim was previously death sentenced a juror stated “I knew that” and failed to call Bailiff Paulson to testify he saw a juror nodding affirmatively in response to [Judge] Cundiff because their testimony, viewed together, established jury misconduct. Reasonably competent counsel would have called [Judge] Cundiff because he had disclosed what was said and would have subpoenaed and called Paulson to confirm it. Tim was prejudiced because both together required a new trial. Alternatively, the motion court clearly erred overruling Tim was denied a fair trial, a fair and impartial jury, due process, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, U.S. Const. Amends. VI, VIII, and XIV, when the juror indicated what he already knew and Cundiff failed to immediately investigate that knowledge and/or disclose to counsel what happened so counsel could immediately investigate, entered orders prohibiting investigation, and prevented a hearing for two months because Tim was improperly denied the opportunity to establish jury misconduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Storey v. State

3. “The charge of any offense is not evidence, and it creates no inference that any offense was committed or that the defendant is guilty of an offense. The defendant is presumed to be innocent, unless and until, during your deliberations upon your verdict, you find him guilty. This presumption of innocence places upon the state the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. The law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, after your consideration of all the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you will find him guilty. If you are not so convinced, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leisure v. Bowersox