Simpson v. Al Lockhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, each statute unambiguously specifies the conduct prohibited and the penalties authorized upon conviction. This satisfies the fair notice requirements of the due process clause. Id. [United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 , 99 S.Ct. 2198 , 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979) ]; accord Cromwell v. State, 269 Ark. 104 , 598 S.W.2d 733 (1980). “Although the statutes create uncertainty as to which crime may be charged and therefore what penalties may be imposed, they do so to no greater extent than would a single statute authorizing various alternative punishments.” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. at 123 , 99 S.Ct. at 2204 . Petitioner does not argue that the state’s decision to prosecute him for capital felony murder ... rather than first-degree felony murder was in some way discriminatory. See id. at 123-24 , 99 S.Ct. at 2203-04 (when act violates more than one criminal statute, defendant may be prosecuted under either so long as no discrimination against any class of defendants). We therefore hold the overlapping capital felony murder and first-degree felony murder statutes are not unconstitutionally vague.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitmore v. Lockhart