10 So. 3d 53 - Saunders v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' Blackmon v. State , 7 So.3d 397 , 425 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting Ex parte Watkins , 509 So.2d 1074 , 1076 (Ala. 1987) ). See also Saunders v. State , 10 So.3d 53 , 78 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) ('For an appellate court to find plain error in the Batson [or J.E.B. ] context, the court must find that the record raises an inference of purposeful discrimination by the State in the exercise of peremptory challenges.').”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Russell v. State · 265 So. 3d 387 - Gaston v. State

2. ““ ‘ “A trial judge is in a decidedly better position than an appellate court to assess the credibility of the jurors during voir dire questioning. See Ford v. State, 628 So.2d 1068 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). For that reason, we give great deference to a trial judge’s ruling on challenges for cause. Baker v. State, 906 So.2d 210 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).” “ ‘Turner v. State, 924 So.2d 737, 754 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). “ ‘ “The ‘original constitutional yardstick’ on this issue was described in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). Under Wither-spoon, before a juror could be removed for cause based on the juror’s views on the death penalty, the juror had to make it unmistakably clear that he or she would automatically vote against the death penalty and that his or her feelings on that issue would therefore prevent the juror from making an impartial decision on guilt. However, this is no longer the test. In Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that the proper standard for determining whether a venire-member should be excluded for cause because of opposition to the death penalty is whether the venire-member’s views would ‘ “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” ’ [Quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980).] The Supreme Court has expressly stated that juror bias does not have to be proven with ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Revis v. State · McCray v. State

3. “'There are three factors generally recognized as indicating that a capital offense is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel: (1) the infliction on the victim of physical violence beyond that necessary or sufficient to cause death; (2) appreciable suffering by the victim after the assault that ultimately resulted in death; and (3) the infliction of psychological torture on the victim.' " Saunders v. State , 10 So.3d 53 , 108 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Brooks v. State , 973 So.2d 380 , 417-18 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), citing in turn Norris v. State , 793 So.2d 847 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ). Here, the circuit court's instruction that "for a capital offense to be especially heinous or atrocious, any brutality which is involved in it must exceed that which is normally present in a capital offense”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 84 So. 3d 968 - Mitchell v. State · 246 So. 3d 1032 - Kelley v. State