State v. Basile’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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. Basile claims error in overruling defense objections to victim impact evidence and certain motions relating to victim impact evidence. Through pictures, letters and stories about Elizabeth, the victim's mother and sister testified as to the effect Elizabeth DeCaro's death had on the lives of surviving family and friends. Elizabeth's mother, Georgianna Van Iseghm, read from a diary she kept about her daughter's numerous good qualities. Melanie Enkleman, the victim's sister, read a poem and a letter by another sister, Theresa. Enkleman also read from her own prepared statement explaining her feelings about the loss of her sister. Basile objects to all the victim impact evidence, claiming it was so emotional and inflammatory and that its prejudice far outweighed any probative value and rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. Basile takes special exception to two paragraphs of a letter written by Theresa and three paragraphs of Enkleman's prepared statement. The critical portion of Theresa's letter read by Enkleman states as follows: To truly describe Elizabeth to you would take more time than we both have. If I did have to describe her, I would say full of life and full of and an [sic] outgoing love for everyone. And that is what you, Daniel Basile, took away from me and my family. You took away her sweet smile, her warm personality and her generous heart. You took a family as a whole and tore a very important part of it away. That ripped out part, Dan, was my sister. And so”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · 125 F. Supp. 2d 930 - Basile v. Bowersox

2. “Basile cites three instances where the prosecuting attorney stated personal opinions, which Basile claims constituted plain error or, in the alternative, that counsel was ineffective for failure to object. The instance in which an objection was made included the following statement by the prosecuting attorney: Now, what about the dog. The dog is more important than any of us think. The dog barked at strangers, jumped on strangers, was protective of those children. The dog was home in the morning when the kids left and dad wasn't there. Dad shows up to pick Ricky up, and we debated whether to put the children on, but that was the only way we could prove this. [Tr. 2407.] At that point, an objection was interposed that the prosecuting attorney was relying on "personal hardship." No motion for mistrial was made. The prosecuting attorney immediately withdrew the comment. The retraction was sufficient to correct any impropriety and overcome a claim that a motion for mistrial should have been made and sustained. State v. Turnbull, 403 S.W.2d 570, 573 (Mo.1966). This comment, alone or in conjunction with others, did not have the pervasive prejudicial effect necessary to require the grant of a mistrial sua sponte. State v. Weaver, 912 S.W.2d 499, 512 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 856 , 117 S.Ct. 153 , 136 L.Ed.2d 98 (1996). Counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to make a motion which would properly be denied. The second and third instances of alleged "injection”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 F. Supp. 2d 930 - Basile v. Bowersox

3. “Basile claims that Missouri's death statute and its provisions for proportionality review violate his constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, fair trial and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant claims that the Court must compare Basile's sentences with the sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants who did not receive the death penalty to ensure that his death sentence is not disproportionate and to ensure a "meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [the death penalty] is imposed from the many cases in which it is not." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 198 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2937 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). In support of this argument, Basile reiterates facts relied on under other arguments. Most notably, he relies on the victim impact testimony by the victim's mother and sister, and that the victim's mother improperly delved into religious matters during the victim impact testimony. Defendant confuses two arguments. The first is whether the Court believes that the death sentence was imposed because of passion, prejudice or arbitrary factors. The Court, after reviewing the entire record of more than 2,500 pages, including the relatively few pages devoted to victim impact evidence, concludes that the sentence was not imposed because of passion, prejudice or arbitrary factors. Moreover, the Court concludes that this case is similar to other cases in which the death penalty was imposed where a murder was committed for hire, Sta”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 F. Supp. 2d 930 - Basile v. Bowersox