State v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The State’s proof showed that the [petitioner] and a separately tried co-defendant, Christopher Davis, arranged to purchase weapons for $1200 from Lee and Ewing on the evening of February 27, 1996. Earlier that evening, the [petitioner] and Davis were at Davis’s apartment drinking and smoking marijuana with Ronald Benedict, Antoine Kirby, and Antonio Cartwright. Cartwright testified at trial that he overheard Davis and the [petitioner] talking about robbing the two victims and taking their guns and automobile. Cartwright testified that the [petitioner] stated, “If we rob ‘em, we gotta kill ‘em ... because they know us.” Between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. that evening, after receiving a telephone call from Lee, the [petitioner], Davis, and two other men identified as “Kay” and “Sneak” left the apartment. Both the [petitioner] and Davis were armed with guns — Davis with a 9mm handgun, the [petitioner] with a .46 caliber handgun. Davis also carried a black bag containing handcuffs, rope, and duct tape. Approximately thirty minutes later, Kay and Sneak returned to the apartment. Thirty to forty-five minutes after that, the [petitioner] and Davis also returned. They were driving Lee’s Cadillac and were carrying at least six assault weapons, some pagers, and clothing, including Lee’s distinctive green and yellow tennis shoes, and Ewing’s jacket. Davis was wearing a gold cross necklace that belonged to Lee. The [petitioner] told Cartwright that “Chris [Davis] couldn’t kill Greg [Ewing], so ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gdongalay P. Berry v. State of Tennessee

2. “[T]he primary concern for a defendant charged with first-degree murder is notice that he or she is facing an enhanced sentence of life without parole or death. Such notice is provided for in both the Code and in the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-208 (1996); Tenn. R.Crim. P. 12.3 (1984). Rule 12.3 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates written notice, given at least thirty days prior to trial, of the state’s intention to seek the death penalty and of the aggravating circumstances the State intends to rely upon for such enhanced sentence. Section 39-13-208 provides for the same in cases where the State is seeking an enhanced sentence of life without parole.”

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

3. “[T]he discretion allowed judges and attorneys during sentencing in first degree murder cases is not unfettered. Our constitutional standards require inquiry into the reliability, relevance, value, and prejudicial effect of sentencing evidence to preserve fundamental fairness and protect the rights of both the defendant and the victim’s family. The rules of evidence can in some instances be helpful guides in reaching these determinations of admissibility. Trial judges are not, however, required to adhere strictly to the rules of evidence. These rules are too restrictive and unwieldy in the arena of capital sentencing.”

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