State v. Roll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 106 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After ingesting alcohol, marijuana, and four to six hits of LSD, Gary Lee Roll, David Rhodes, and John Browne decided to rob a drug dealer. Roll supplied each of them with a gun and a knife and drove the three to the home of an alleged drug dealer. When Roll attempted to force open the front door, a child cried out. Rhodes and Browne refused to go inside, so they all returned to Roll’s residence. Later that night, they decided to rob a different drug dealer, Randy Scheper. At about 4:00 a.m., Roll drove to Scheper’s house, with Rhodes and Browne. Roll knocked on the door and Scheper’s mother, Sherry, answered. Displaying a badge, Roll identified himself as a police officer and ordered her to open the door. When she did, Roll and Rhodes entered. Browne, who knew the family, remained outside, fearing he would be recognized. Inside the house, Roll fatally shot Randy in the head and beat Sherry to death with his gun. Roll .(either alone or in concert with Rhodes) fatally stabbed Randy’s brother, Curtis. Roll, Rhodes and Browne then left with some marijuana and $215 in cash. Returning home, Roll cleaned blood and hair from his gun and blood off his knife and clothing. He wrapped the murder weapons and a box of ammunition in a package, which his son buried in the woods behind Roll’s house. In the weeks after the murders, Browne began to fear for his safety. To protect himself, Browne wore a tape recorder during a conversation with Roll about the murders. On the tape, Roll admitted ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 16 F. Supp. 2d 1066 - Roll v. Bowersox

2. “This Court’s review of the denial of a post-conviction motion under Rule 24.035 is limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after review of the record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Movant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion court clearly erred in its ruling. To show he was entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion, Movant must show that (1) he alleged facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) the facts alleged raise matters not refuted by the files and record of his case; and (3) the matters complained of resulted in prejudice to him. An eviden-tiary hearing may only be denied when the record conclusively shows that the movant is not entitled to relief.”

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

3. “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel founded on counsel’s conflict of interest, ... movant must show that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. In order to prove a conflict of interest, something must have been done by counsel, or something must have been forgone by counsel and lost to defendant, which was detrimental to the interests of defendant and advantageous to another. Furthermore, the mere existence of a possible conflict of interest does not automatically preclude effective representation.”

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