Wolfe v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 70 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. “The body of 84 year old Bertha Lemell was found on the floor of her home, along with a change purse and some scattered coins. A number of black-eyed peas were also strewn on the floor. According to the testimony of a medical examiner, the victim had twenty-six stab wounds to the head, trunk, and abdomen. Blood found at the crime scene was subjected to serology and DNA tests. A serologist testified that the physical characteristics found in [Wolfe’s] blood matched blood found at the crime scene and that those characteristics occurred in only 0.2 percent of the African-American population. [Wolfe is African-American.] The DNA test results showed that [Wolfe’s] blood and the blood found at the crime scene shared a DNA pattern that was estimated to appear in approximately 1 in 10 million Caucasians, in approximately 1 in 1.7 million African-Americans, and in approximately 1 in 8.2 million Hispanics. Testimony at trial showed that Lemell was a close friend of [Wolfe’s] wife, that [Wolfe] lived in the same neighborhood, and that he was seen within a few blocks of the crime scene shortly before and shortly after the murder. The residence showed no sign of forced entry. The evidence also showed that [Wolfe] had a cut on his fingers shortly after the murder. .... Testimony showed that Lemell routinely kept money in a coin purse. She also kept black-eyed peas in her purse for good luck. Brenda Vallian, a friend of the victim, testified that she took Lemell shopping on the day of the of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolfe v. Dretke

2. “[Ajppellant argues that the failure of the statutory Penry issue [ ] to assign a burden of proof permits open-ended discretion in violation of the Eighth Amendment.... The “open-ended” objection was leveled at Penry itself, and the United States Supreme Court responded: “In contrast to the carefully defined standards that must narrow a sentencer’s discretion to impose the death sentence, the Constitution limits a State’s ability to narrow a sentencer’s discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to decline it to impose the death sentence.” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 327 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 .... The future dangerousness special issue and other non-Penry special issues, along with the specifically enumerated murder situations which constitute capital murder, limit the jury’s discretion to consider aggravating factors. As noted above, it is appropriate not to limit a jury’s discretion concerning mitigating factors.”

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

3. “If the judge discharges the defendant under this section, the judge may set aside the verdict or permit the defendant to withdraw his plea, and shall dismiss the accusation, complaint, information or indictment against the defendant, who shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he has been convicted or to which he has pleaded guilty.”

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