Cone v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`Cruel' means designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the suffering of others, pitiless.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Payne v. Bell · Payne v. Bell

2. “The jury ... found that the murders in question were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that they involved torture or depravity of mind as provided in T.C.A. § 39 — 2—203(i)(5). The evidence abundantly established that both of the elderly victims had been brutally beaten to death by multiple crushing blows to the skulls. Blood was spattered throughout the house, and both victims apparently had attempted to resist, because numerous defensive wounds were found on their persons. The only excuse offered in the entire record for this unspeakably brutal conduct by the accused was that these elderly victims had at some point ceased to “cooperate” with him in his ransacking of their home and in his effort to flee from arrest. As previously stated, it was stipulated by counsel for appellant that there was no issue of self-defense even remotely suggested. The deaths of the victims were not instantaneous, and obviously one had to be killed before the other. The terror, fright and horror that these elderly helpless citizens must have endured was certainly something that the jury could have taken into account in finding this aggravating circumstance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Payne v. Bell · Bell v. Cone

3. “Although none of these Supreme, Court decisions is “on all fours” with the instruction in Cone’s case, in the final analysis, Stringer’s statement that Maynard’s invalidation of Oklahoma’s HAC aggravator was an “old rule” dictated by Godfrey, points ineluctably to the conclusion that Godfrey represents a “clearly established” Supreme Court precedent dictating that Tennessee’s HAC aggravator is unconstitutionally vague. Although it is true that the HAC aggra- - vator in Cone’s case contained the additional words “in that it involved torture or depravity of mind,” all of those words except “torture” have been held to be too vague, on the basis of Godfrey. Since Maynard was dictated by God-frey, it is difficult to imagine how any of the other cases addressing very minor variations on the instruction in Maynard and Cone would not also be dictated by Godfrey.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Payne v. Bell