Salazar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 22 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f a defendant has not been acquitted of the death penalty and his conviction and sentence are reversed on appeal or collateral proceedings, the slate is wiped clean and a defendant may be subjected to any punishment authorized by law, including death.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Selsor v. Workman · Salazar v. State

2. “If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lockett v. State · 2022 OK CR 15 - OLIVER v. STATE

3. “Mindful of the lack of finality in this area of the law, this Court reaffirms its position that unadjudicated offenses may be introduced during the second stage of a capital trial to support the aggravating circumstance of “continuing threat”. Prior adjudicated cases resulting in convictions for violent felony offenses support a separate aggravator, “prior violent felony”. However, proof of the “continuing threat” aggra-vator is much more than prior convictions; it is the circumstances surrounding the murder for which the defendant has just been convicted and his prior criminal conduct. This is the primary evidence the State must prove to find the “continuing threat” aggravator. Evidence of a defendant’s criminal history is relevant to the jury’s determination as to whether the defendant is likely to commit future acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Having such evidence for consideration focuses the jury’s sentencing determination on the particularized circumstances of the offense and the individual offender. To find the use of unadju-dicated offenses improper is a backdoor attempt to find the aggravator unconstitutional contrary to decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Denial of the evidence deprives the government of the. ability to prove a constitutional aggravating circumstance.”

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