Tuggle v. Ce Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
57 F.3d 1356 · 1995
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Gregg v. Georgia · Estelle v. McGuire · Irvin v. Dowd · Ake v. Oklahoma
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Sjince the jury returned a verdict finding the death sentence warranted under both the “vileness” and the “dangerousness” standard, it is of no importance whether the instruction on “vileness” was correct so long as the instruction on “dangerousness” was correct, provided, of course, the verdict of the jury was unanimous on the “dangerousness” ground.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'When a jury makes separate findings of specific statutory aggravating circumstances, any of which could support a sentence of death, and one of the circumstances subsequently is invalidated, the remaining valid circumstance, or circumstances, will support the sentence.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved . . . [d]epravity of mind [and] . . . [a]ggravated battery to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.