961 So. 2d 670 - Foster v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 8 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although there are no cases addressing the precise application of § 99-19-107, we think it fairly obvious that it is reserved for that event when either this' Court or the United States Supreme Court makes a wholesale declaration that the death penalty in general, and/or our own statutory death penalty scheme in particular, is unconstitutional. This section is not reasonably or logically intended for use on a case by case basis by trial courts or this Court in conjunction with Enmund . analysis. The only logical alternative once the jury verdict was disregarded would have been to impose a sentence of life imprisonment. ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. William Holly v. State of Mississippi · 160 So. 3d 188 - Frederick Bell v. State of Mississippi

2. “[T]he court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced to death shall cause such person to be brought before the court and the court shall sentence such person to imprisonment for life, and such person shall not be eligible for work release or parole.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. William Holly v. State of Mississippi · 27 So. 3d 460 - Neal v. State

3. “The language of the statute is clear; it intends to provide for an alternative sentence for a person whose death sentence has been deemed unconstitutional. This Court has previously addressed the scope of section 99-19-107 in Abram v. State, 606 So.2d 1015 (Miss.1992). In Abram , this Court held that the statute was applicable “for that event when either this Court or the United States Supreme Court makes a wholesale declaration that the death penalty in general, and/or our own statutory death penalty scheme in particular, is unconstitutional.” Abram, 606 So.2d at 1039 . The “wholesale declaration” requirement set out in Abram is extraneous language that is unnecessary to the application of the statute. The statute provides that no one whose death penalty is ruled unconstitutional may receive parole. To the extent that Abram is inconsistent with the plain meaning of section 99-19-107, it is hereby overruled.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 160 So. 3d 188 - Frederick Bell v. State of Mississippi