5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1984–1990 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tafero v. Stategreen2 sentences1987This Court has already considered Tafero's claim of arbitrary and discriminatory imposition of the death penalty, 459 So.2d at 1037 , and the federal court has rejected his claim regarding pro se representation at trial. 796 F.2d at 1322 . 1986In Tafero v. State, 459 So.2d 1034, 1037 (Fla. 1984), this court rejected Tafero's claim that the trial court's belief that only statutory mitigating circumstances could be considered required resentencing with the statement: Conjecture about what the court might have done if presented with nonstatutory mitigating evidence is merely that conjecture. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tafero v. State
green
2 sentences1990Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 , 93 n. 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)." 459 So.2d at 1036 . 1984Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 , 93 n. 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). | 2 | 1984–1990 |
Woodson v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1988In light of Tafero's defense and his counsel's statement at sentencing, the only reasonable explanation for counsel's failure to argue this mitigating evidence at the penalty *291 phase was that he did not know that he could. [2] We have been charged with the responsibility of assuring compliance with the eighth amendment's "need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case." Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305 , 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991 , 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976). 1988In light of Tafero's defense and his counsel's statement at sentencing, the only reasonable explanation for counsel's failure to argue this mitigating evidence at the penalty *291 phase was that he did not know that he could. [2] We have been charged with the responsibility of assuring compliance with the eighth amendment's "need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case." Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305 , 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991 , 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Tafero v. State
neutral
1 sentence1988Tafero v. State, 440 So.2d 350 (Fla. 1983). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Jessie Joseph Tafero v. Louie L. Wainwright
green
1 sentence1987This Court has already considered Tafero's claim of arbitrary and discriminatory imposition of the death penalty, 459 So.2d at 1037 , and the federal court has rejected his claim regarding pro se representation at trial. 796 F.2d at 1322 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Zant v. Stephens
green
2 sentences1984We reject Tafero's claim that this verdict may have rested on insufficient grounds and that Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 , 103 S.Ct. 2733 , 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983), requires vacating his death sentence. 1984We reject Tafero's claim that this verdict may have rested on insufficient grounds and that Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 , 103 S.Ct. 2733 , 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983), requires vacating his death sentence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |