King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant’s statements are best categorized as mitigating proof that the jury could have used to weigh against its findings of the valid aggravating circumstances. The conduct underlying the defendant’s prior convictions may be less egregious than the conduct underlying the prior convictions of other defendants who have appeared before this Court, [footnote omitted] We emphasize, however, that Howell does not require us to conduct a comparative review in determining the substance and persuasiveness of the remaining valid aggravating circumstances.... We have followed the analysis delineated in Howell and conclude that, in this case, the prior violent felony conviction aggravating circumstance is both objectively reliable and amply supported by the proof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. Bell

2. “The defendant, Tommy Lee King, and his co-defendant, Ronald Davis, entered a tavern in May of 1982. The defendant fired a shot into the air and ordered the tavern’s patrons and owner to- lie down on the floor. The defendant robbed the patrons, rifled through the tavern’s cash register and took the owner’s car keys. Apparently, the defendant then without provocation shot the tavern owner, who was lying on the floor.... The tavern owner died approximately one week later as a result of the gunshot wound.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. the Tennessean

3. “The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to two (2) or more persons, other than the victim murdered, during his act of murder.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(3) (1982 & Supp.1986). 3 . This disclosure obligation applies specifically to materials in mitigation of sentence. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87-88 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Johnson v. State