Schiro v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “actually and necessarily determined the issue he seeks to foreclose.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Schiro Farley Superintendent Indiana State Prison et al · Hunt v. Gilmore

2. “The constitutional challenge raised by petitioner would indeed be a significant one If the Supreme Court had not largely resolved the matter in Spaziano v. Flori da, 468 U.S. 447 , 104 S.Ct. 3154 , 82 L.Ed.2d 340 [ (1984) ]. In Spaziano , the Court held that a judge may impose the death penalty despite a jury’s recommendation to the contrary, since defendants have no constitutional right to jury sentencing in capital cases. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have confirmed that holding. “The decision whether a particular punishment — even the death penalty— is appropriate in any given case is not one that we have ever required to be made by a jury.” Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 745-746 , 110 S.Ct. 1441, 1446-1447 , 108 L.Ed.2d 725 [ (1990) ] (quoting Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 385 , 106 S.Ct. 689, 696 , 88 L.Ed.2d 704 [ (1986) ]). * * * * * Under Spaziano, a reviewing court’s responsibility “is not to second-guess the deference accorded to the jury’s recommendation in a particular case, but to ensure that the result of the process is not arbitrary or discriminatory.” Id. 468 U.S. at 465 [104 S.Ct. at 3165]. See also Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 [ (1972) ]. Review designed to invalidate arbitrary or discriminatory sentences not only provides a more direct link to values of fairness and consistency, but also provides a more judicially manageable standard than reviewing the level of judicial deference accorded to the jury. Short”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 873 F. Supp. 1199 - Smith v. Farley

3. “This Court, of course, seeks to ensure that the application of the death penalty statute is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), sets forth three criteria to determine whether a state has appropriately limited a sentencer’s discretion. The statutory scheme must furnish clear and objective standards, specific and detailed guidance, and an opportunity for rational review of the process for imposing the death sentence. Id. at 427 , 100 S.Ct. at 1764 (Stewart, J., plurality opinion); Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992) (explicitly applying the Godfrey principle to a “weighing” state).... Indiana’s list of aggravating and mitigating factors provides fixed, objective and uniform discretionary constraints to guide death penalty sentencing decisions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 259 F. Supp. 2d 741 - Conner v. Anderson