HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017263.jpg
2.46 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book manuscript / legal memoir draft
File Size:
2.46 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a book manuscript or legal memoir (page 176) discussing the US Supreme Court case *Tison v. Arizona*. The author (narrating in the first person) describes their reaction to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's majority opinion, initially believing they had won based on the Court's acceptance that the Tison brothers did not intend to kill. The text analyzes the legal definitions of 'intent to kill' versus 'reckless indifference' in the context of the death penalty and the felony-murder rule.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ricky Tison | Petitioner |
Mentioned in the legal opinion as not having evidence of intent to kill.
|
| Raymond Tison | Petitioner |
Mentioned in the legal opinion as not having evidence of intent to kill.
|
| Sandra Day O'Connor | Supreme Court Justice |
Wrote the majority opinion in the Tison case; previously dissented in Enmund.
|
| The Narrator ('I') | Author/Attorney |
First-person narrator discussing their argument in court ('precisely what I had argued'). Likely Alan Dershowitz give...
|
| Enmund | Legal Precedent Subject |
Refers to the defendant in a previous case (Enmund v. Florida) used as a precedent.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US Supreme Court |
Implied as 'The Court' and by the mention of Justice O'Connor.
|
|
| Arizona Supreme Court |
Mentioned in footnote 59 regarding their reasoning on 'intent to kill'.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
N/A (Circa 1987)
Supreme Court decision in Tison v. Arizona
Washington D.C. (Supreme Court)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the lower court mentioned in the footnote.
|
Relationships (2)
Narrator (I)
→
Attorney-Client (Implied)
→
Ricky and Raymond Tison
Narrator says 'That was precisely what I had argued' regarding the petitioners' case.
Text states O'Connor 'had dissented in Enmund'.
Key Quotes (3)
"When I read these words, I thought that we had surely won. That was precisely what I had argued."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017263.jpg
Quote #1
"This reckless indifference to the value of human life may be every bit as shocking to the moral sense as an 'intent to kill.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017263.jpg
Quote #2
"Petitioners do not fall within the 'intent to kill' category of felony murderers for which Enmund explicitly finds the death penalty permissible under the Eighth Amendment."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017263.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document