Legal Opinion

Austin v. Bell

District Court, M.D. Tennessee

Decided May 9, 1996No. 3:86-0293PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

JOHN T. NIXON, Chief Judge.

Pending before the Court in the above-styled action are Petitioner’s remaining arguments for habeas corpus relief. The Court has already granted Petitioner habeas corpus relief based on three arguments that Petitioner raised in his Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 The Court now considers the remaining claims in Petitioner’s Amended Habeas Corpus Petition (Doc. No. 64). The Court considers the following issues:

1. The constitutionality of the jury’s instruction regarding “heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstances” under Tenn.Code .Ann. §…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Richard H. Austin v. Ricky Bell, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
  2. Mata v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
  3. Lutz v. HemingwayDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2007
  4. Jamison v. CollinsDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2000
  5. Mata v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API