928 So. 2d 315 - Morrow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 29 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]ttachments to briefs are not considered part of the record and therefore cannot be considered on appeal.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Oliver v. State · Owens v. HOOTERS RESTAURANT

2. “"In addition, in its order, the trial court stated the following regarding nonstatutory mitigating circumstances: "`The Judge, just as the jury, is entitled to consider anything, any matter that the Court might find in any way to be mitigating in order to consider the same and balance the same with the aggravating circumstances as found by the Court. There was evidence and testimony presented during the trial and sentencing phases of the Defendant's home life, early family life, lack of education and lack of a functional and traditional family unit. The Court has carefully considered all of the evidence presented during all stages of the trial in this cause, as well as the Court's observation and evidence admitted during all proceedings, pretrial and posttrial with regard to this case and the Court finds that mitigating circumstances exist with regard to this case.' "(C. 17.) The trial court indicated that it found nonstatutory mitigating circumstances to exist, but it failed to identify which nonstatutory mitigating circumstances it found to exist. As this Court stated in Roberts v. State, 735 So.2d 1244 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 735 So.2d 1270 (Ala.1999): "`In capital cases, it is the duty of this court to independently determine whether the sentence of death is appropriate in a particular case. In order to reach this conclusion, we must reweigh the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances as found by the trial court. ' "735 So.2d at 1269 (emphasis added”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woods v. State · 58 So. 3d 215 - Spencer v. State

3. ““Those states with statutes prohibiting the execution of a mentally retarded defendant require that a defendant, to be considered mentally retarded, must have significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ of 70 or below), and significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior. Additionally, these problems must have manifested themselves during the developmental period (i.e., before the defendant reached age 18).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 213 So. 3d 313 - Ex Parte Smith, 1080973 (Ala. 10-22-2010) · 60 So. 3d 326 - Morris v. State