952 So. 2d 470 - Branch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The idea that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that the defendant was on the run from two separate charges of sexual battery as mitigation is so absurd that the Court finds that the defendant could not have suffered any prejudice as a matter of law. Further, the jury and the Court rejected the story that the defendant had an accomplice, as illustrated in the sentencing order. The defendant’s characterization that the expert’s testimony proved the defendant could not conform his actions to the law is patently incorrect. In fact, the defendant’s expert, Dr. Henry Dee, testified during cross-examination to the exact opposite conclusion on all three of these mitigators: Q .... And in this particular instance, based on what you reviewed, there’s no clinical diagnosis that the defendant was under any extreme mental or emotional disturbance? A .... That’s correct. Q. No indication that the defendant was under the duress of any other person? A. That’s correct. Q. Isn’t it true that you found that the defendant was, in fact — had the ability, the capacity, to appreciate the criminality of his conduct? A. Yes. Q. He had the ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law; isn’t that also correct? A. Yes. I think it was impaired but certainly not obliterated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 779 F. Supp. 2d 1309 - Branch v. McDonough

2. “Here, the trial court found two other significant aggravators: the murder was committed in the course of a sexual battery and was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The trial court determined that the mitigating evidence was marginal. Moreover, contrary to Branch's assertions, the mitigating evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing adds little more to what was previously presented.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 236 So. 3d 981 - Eric Scott Branch v. State of Florida & SC18-218 Eric Scott Branch v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

3. “utilized in Florida only when the science at issue is new or novel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Overton v. State