Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Tennessee v. Hubert Glenn Sextongreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 428 (Tenn. 2012). (5) The jury was required to agree unanimously to a life verdict in violation of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990). 2014See, e.g., State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 427 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 275-76 (Tenn. 2009). -124- 1 According to the Petitioner, his death sentence was imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner because (1) uniform standards or procedures for jury selection did not exist to ensure open inquiry regarding potentially prejudicial subject matter; (2) the death qualification process skewed the make-up of the jury and resulted in a “guilt-prone” jury; (3) he was prohibited from addressing each juror’s misconceptions about matters relevant to sentencing; (4) he was prohibite | 2 | 2 |
Mills v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 428 (Tenn. 2012). (5) The jury was required to agree unanimously to a life verdict in violation of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990). 2014See, e.g., State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 427 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 275-76 (Tenn. 2009). -124- 1 According to the Petitioner, his death sentence was imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner because (1) uniform standards or procedures for jury selection did not exist to ensure open inquiry regarding potentially prejudicial subject matter; (2) the death qualification process skewed the make-up of the jury and resulted in a “guilt-prone” jury; (3) he was prohibited from addressing each juror’s misconceptions about matters relevant to sentencing; (4) he was prohibite | 1 | 7 |
McKoy v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 428 (Tenn. 2012). (5) The jury was required to agree unanimously to a life verdict in violation of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990). 2014See, e.g., State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 427 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 275-76 (Tenn. 2009). -124- 1 According to the Petitioner, his death sentence was imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner because (1) uniform standards or procedures for jury selection did not exist to ensure open inquiry regarding potentially prejudicial subject matter; (2) the death qualification process skewed the make-up of the jury and resulted in a “guilt-prone” jury; (3) he was prohibited from addressing each juror’s misconceptions about matters relevant to sentencing; (4) he was prohibite | 1 | 6 |
State v. Kisergreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 427 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 275-76 (Tenn. 2009). -124- 1 According to the Petitioner, his death sentence was imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner because (1) uniform standards or procedures for jury selection did not exist to ensure open inquiry regarding potentially prejudicial subject matter; (2) the death qualification process skewed the make-up of the jury and resulted in a “guilt-prone” jury; (3) he was prohibited from addressing each juror’s misconceptions about matters relevant to sentencing; (4) he was prohibite | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKinneygreen1 sentence2004The petitioner’s complaints that Tennessee’s death penalty instructions (1) fail to advise jurors about the sentencing effect of a non-unanimous verdict, (2) require jurors to agree unanimously to a life verdict in violation of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), and (3) fail to inform the jurors that the ultimate determination is whether death is the appropriate penalty were rejected in State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291, 319 (Tenn.2002) (Appendix), Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 170 , Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 87 , and Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 268 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cazes
green
2 sentences2004The petitioner’s complaints that Tennessee’s death penalty instructions (1) fail to advise jurors about the sentencing effect of a non-unanimous verdict, (2) require jurors to agree unanimously to a life verdict in violation of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), and (3) fail to inform the jurors that the ultimate determination is whether death is the appropriate penalty were rejected in State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291, 319 (Tenn.2002) (Appendix), Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 170 , Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 87 , and Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 268 . 2004The petitioner’s insistence that fairness should require that the defense have the final argument in the penalty phase of the trial was rejected in Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 87 , Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 269 , Smith, 857 S.W.2d at 24, and Caughron, 855 S.W.2d at 542 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Brimmer
green
2 sentences2004The petitioner’s complaints that Tennessee’s death penalty instructions (1) fail to advise jurors about the sentencing effect of a non-unanimous verdict, (2) require jurors to agree unanimously to a life verdict in violation of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), and (3) fail to inform the jurors that the ultimate determination is whether death is the appropriate penalty were rejected in State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291, 319 (Tenn.2002) (Appendix), Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 170 , Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 87 , and Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 268 . 2004The petitioner’s insistence that fairness should require that the defense have the final argument in the penalty phase of the trial was rejected in Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 87 , Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 269 , Smith, 857 S.W.2d at 24, and Caughron, 855 S.W.2d at 542 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Caughron
green
1 sentence2004The petitioner’s insistence that fairness should require that the defense have the final argument in the penalty phase of the trial was rejected in Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 87 , Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 269 , Smith, 857 S.W.2d at 24, and Caughron, 855 S.W.2d at 542 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Terry v. State
green
1 sentence2004The petitioner’s complaints that Tennessee’s death penalty instructions (1) fail to advise jurors about the sentencing effect of a non-unanimous verdict, (2) require jurors to agree unanimously to a life verdict in violation of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), and (3) fail to inform the jurors that the ultimate determination is whether death is the appropriate penalty were rejected in State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291, 319 (Tenn.2002) (Appendix), Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 170 , Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 87 , and Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 268 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.