Daniels v. Bronson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On June 16, 1984, the day of the murders, the victim, Christine Whipple, shared a two bedroom apartment with CT Page 5085-ip Mary Strong on Peck Street in Norwich. Christine and her three year old daughter, Amy Russell, normally slept in one bedroom while Mary slept in the other. During May and early June, Mary had dated and had sexual relations with the defendant, but approximately one week before the day of the murders she had broken up with him. On the afternoon of June 15, she had spoken to the defendant on the phone, telling him she would call him later. Soon thereafter, she went out on a date from which she returned in the early morning hours. At approximately 1 a.m., the defendant, looking for Mary, arrived at the apartment. Having been admitted by Christine, the defendant refused to comply with her request that he leave. An argument and then a physical struggle ensued. Christine broke away and ran into her bedroom, where the defendant followed her. He pulled out a knife, which he had concealed in his sock, and stabbed her several times in the chest. She fell on the bed while he continued to stab her. Amy awoke screaming, "Mommy, Mommy." The defendant grabbed the child by the neck in an attempt to strangle her and then slit her throat. Upon hearing gurgling noises from Christine, he removed her panties and had sexual intercourse with her, stabbing her again afterwards. He then proceed to remove and destroy evidence linking him with the crimes. (In his statement to the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Daniels, No. Cr 21-20169 (Apr. 25, 2000)

2. “In most recent cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Blockburger test does not end the inquiry. Even if the crimes are the “same” under Blockburger , a legislature can nonetheless authorize cumulative punishments, but only by clearly indicating its intent to do so. In determining the relevant legislative intent, federal courts are bound by the state courts’ construction of the statutes at issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boucino v. Tillman