State v. Shepherd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As stated in prior dissents, the words “heinous, atrocious or cruel” are so bereft of particular meaning that this aggravating circumstance does not accomplish the con-, stitutional mandate of directing and limiting the jury’s discretion “so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 189 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); see State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 195 (Tenn.1991). The precariousness of the Court’s persistent reliance upon this patently invalid aggravating circumstance is indicated by the opinion of Justice Stevens in Barber v. Tennessee, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1177 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995). In denying the capital defendant’s petition for certiorari from the judgment of this Court denying postconviction relief, Justice Stevens stated: ... In this case, for example, there are valid reasons for the Court’s decision to deny review. But this does not mean petitioner’s challenge to his death sentence, based in part upon the trial judge’s definition of an aggravating circumstance, lacks merit. Under the trial court’s instruction, a jury could find an aggravating circumstance sufficient to impose the death penalty merely by concluding that a murderer’s state of mind was “wicked or morally corrupt.” Because such a state of mind is a characteristic of every murder, the instruction is plainly impermissible under this Court’s holdings in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428-429 [ 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764-65 , 64 L.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Bush

2. “[T]he victim suffered considerable mental pain as the defendant, along with [a co-defendant], ransacked his home, looking for valuable property and money. The helpless victim’s mental pain, no doubt, increased when the defendant and [a co-defendant] ... discussed whether or not they should kill the victim. The evidence surrounding the murder itself shows that the victim pleaded ... for his life. Dr. Harlan testified that the killing would have taken between three to five minutes to accomplish and that the victim would have been conscious for most of this period. [The co-defendant] testified that she heard the victim moaning and making a choking sound. The facts and circumstances surrounding this murder, including the strangulation, are clearly sufficient to establish torture as that term has been defined ... and to support the jury’s finding that this murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel, in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Cauthern