Crook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. State · Tanzi v. State

2. “Most persuasive in the mitigation evidence is the unrefuted testimony of Drs. McCraney, McClain, and McMahon directly tying Crook’s impairments to his functioning at the time of the murder— which clearly supports the trial court’s attribution of “significant weight” to the statutory mitigators involving Crook’s diminished mental capacity. These circumstances, especially the testimony linking the combination of Crook’s brain damage and substance abuse to his behavior at the time of the murder, counterbalance the effect of the aggravating factors. We also find it compelling that the unrefuted expert testimony indicated that Crook would be especially uninhibited when his already damaged brain was exposed to the negative effects of alcohol and drags. As our cases demonstrate, the existence of this mitigation, and especially that evidence connecting the mental mitigation to the crime, prevents us from classifying this case as among the most aggravated and least mitigated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 21 So. 3d 1276 - Brant v. State

3. ““[W]e make a comprehensive analysis in order to determine whether the crime falls within the category of both the most aggravated and the least mitigated of murders, thereby assuring uniformity in the application of the sentence.” We consider the totality of the circumstances of the case and compare the case to other capital cases. This entails “a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” In other words, proportionality review “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 94 So. 3d 514 - Peterson v. State