Chamberlain v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 77 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When you decide whether the Defendant will continually commit violent crimes, you must consider the fact that if given a life sentence he will be sentenced to life in prison and will therefore not live among society in the free world. Thus, if you believe that the Defendant will not continually commit violent crimes in prison, you must answer [the future-dangerousness special issue] “no”, even if you believe there is a likelihood he would do so if he was a free man.”

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

2. “It is respectfully submitted that the errors herein demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in the rulings that it made, and as a result, when viewed separately or cumulatively, the substantial rights of the appellant were adversely affected. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b). In addition, it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the errors set forth in Points of Error One and Two did not contribute to the conviction or punishment herein.”

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

3. “The [Supreme] Court ... has upheld the constitutionality of aggravating factors ranging from whether the defendant was a ‘cold-blooded, pitiless slayer,’ to whether the ‘perpetrator inflict[ed] mental anguish or physical abuse before the victim’s death,’ to whether the defendant ‘would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.'”

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