Citation network
Bell Vs. Cone
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 24, 2005
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Per Curiam Bell V. ConeSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Ricky Bell, Warden V. GarySearch
-
State v. ConeSearch
-
Cone v. StateSearch
-
Ct., Dec. 16, 1993), p. 6. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of relief on all grounds. Cone v. StateSearch
-
s challenges to the aggravating circumstances found by the jury. Cone v. BellSearch
-
F. 3d 961, 975 (2001). We reversed that judgment. Bell v. ConeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the clearly established principles set forth in our decision in Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
at 796, but nevertheless concluded, in light of Godfrey and the series of cases that followed it, Maynard v. CartwrightSearch
-
U. S. 356 (1988), Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S.639 (1990), and Shell v. MississippiSearch
-
s finding under the narrowed construction of the aggravator that it adopted in State v. DicksSearch
-
Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
The law governing vagueness challenges to statutory aggravating circumstances was summarized aptly in Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
supra , overruled on other grounds, Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
s appeal. In Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
s Supreme Court. Id. , at 255 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). And, in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
applicable to any murder. Id. , at 201 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). See generally Lewis v. JeffersSearch
-
Woodford v. ViscottiSearch
-
court did not comply with constitutional dictates on the basis of nothing more than a lack of citation. See Mitchell v. EsparzaSearch
-
the responsibility to ensure that the aggravating circumstance is applied constitutionally in each case. See State v. PritchettSearch
-
match, almost exactly, the reasons the state court gave when it held the evidence in State v. MelsonSearch
-
State v. CampbellSearch
-
State v. GrosecloseSearch
-
Strouth v. StateSearch
-
Godfrey , supra , at 428. It was not. In State v. DicksSearch
-
Dicks , supra , at 132. See also Sochor v. FloridaSearch
-
distinguishing between those cases in which the death penalty was assessed and those cases in which it was not. Arave v. CreechSearch
-
knowingly created a risk of death to two or more persons, other than the victim murdered, during the murder. See State v. ConeSearch
-
min v. PruettSearch
-
Martinez-Villareal v. LewisSearch
-
Kornahrens v. EvattSearch
-
Nave v. DeloSearch
-
Julius v. JohnsonSearch
-
the state court could have identified and addressed the federal question without its having been raised. See Baldwin v. ReeseSearch
-
s 1984 decision on direct appeal, but, relying on Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
We assume, without deciding, that the Court of Appeals was correct in this conclusion. Footnote 6 In Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
that renders a defendant death-eligible. Id. , at 609. Because Ring does not apply retroactively, Schriro v. SummerlinSearch
-
the defendant. See Brief for Appellant in No. 02C019403CR00052 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1983), p. 20 (arguing, based on State v. PritchettSearch
-
for Appellee in No. 02C019403CR00052 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1983), p. 34 (citing Pritchett , supra , and State v. MelsonSearch
-
S. W. 2d 342, 367 (Tenn. 1982)). Footnote 8 See also State v. GrosecloseSearch
-
State v. DicksSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial