State v. Dellinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On the afternoon of [Friday,] February 21,1992, Dellinger, Sutton, and Griffin spent several hours at Howie’s Hideaway Lounge (Howie’s) on Highway 321 in Maryville, Tennessee. The three men drank beer and played pool until approximately 7:00 p.m., when they left the bar in a dark-blue Camaro. Witnesses testified that there was no evidence of hostility among the men while they were in the bar. Around 7:00 p.m. Cynthia and Kenneth Walker were traveling north on Alcoa Highway near the Hunt Road exit. They observed three men who appeared to be fighting in a dark-colored Camaro on the side of the road. Two of the men were standing outside of the car attempting to forcibly remove the third man from the back seat. Kenneth Walker used his portable radio to report the incident to the dispatcher for Rural Metro Blount County Ambulance. Sharon Davis, who was also driving north on Alcoa Highway around the same time, observed a shirtless and shoeless man stumbling down the side of the road near the Hunt Road exit. When Davis passed the same area about thirty or forty minutes later, she saw two men standing outside of a dark-colored Camaro on the side of the road. They appeared to be looking for something. .... Officer [Drew] Roberts found two men, not Dellinger and Sutton, standing next to a pickup truck [on the side of Hunt Road]. A shirtless man sitting on the bed of the truck identified himself as Griffin. Griffin told the officer that his friends had put him out of a car. Griffin woul”

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

2. “The next morning, [Saturday,] February 22, Jennifer Branam saw Dellinger leave his trailer, remove the object he had placed in his wife’s car the night before, and place the object under his trailer. _At about 2:00 p.m., Connie Bra-nam [Jennifer’s mother and Griffin’s sister] went to Jerry Sullivan’s grocery store in Townsend asking if anyone had seen her brother. Sullivan then saw Branam speaking with two men in a white Dodge pickup truck in the grocery store parking lot. Later that afternoon, Connie Branam accompanied Dellinger and Sutton to Howie’s.... .... When [Terry Lilly Newman] approached Branam, Dellinger, and Sutton to ask if they needed anything ... Bra-nam explained that she was looking for her brother and asked with whom he had left the bar. Newman became confused because she knew that Griffin had left with Dellinger and Sutton. Dellinger asked Newman if she remembered them returning to Howie’s after they bailed Griffin out of jail, but Newman knew that the three had not returned to Howie’s because she had worked until closing. After unsuccessfully attempting to convince Newman to join them in their search for Griffin, Sutton asked Newman if she was married. When Newman responded that she was married, Sutton stated, “[Wjell, your husband is going to be surprised whenever you’re missing one morning, when he wakes up and you’re missing.” Dellinger, Sutton, and Branam left Howie’s around 6:30 p.m. About 8:00 p.m. that night, James and Barbara Gordon observed a fire ”

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

3. “The United States Supreme Court has held that the Federal Constitution neither requires nor prohibits instructions to capital sentencing juries on the possibility of commutation, pardon, or parole. California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1013-14 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983) (“the wisdom of the decision to permit juror consideration of possible commutation is best left to the States”). “It is true that Ramos stands for the broad proposition that we generally will defer to a State’s determination as to what a jury should and should not be told about sentencing.” Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 168 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994). This Court has previously addressed a similar question in State v. Smith, 857S.W.2d 1 (1993). In Smith, the jury sent a note to the trial judge during sentencing deliberations asking that the court define life sentence, define consecutive and concurrent life terms and explain which would apply if a second life sentence were given, and explain when parole would apply. Id. at 10. The trial court declined to answer the jury’s questions and instructed the jury to resume deliberations. Id. This Court approved the trial court’s response to the jury’s question. We held that instructions on the nature of life sentences, concurrent and consecutive sentencing, and parole eligibility create the possibility of jury speculation on the length of time a defendant would have to serve and could “breed irresponsibility on the part of jurors pr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 683 F. Supp. 2d 640 - Sutton v. Bell