113 So. 3d 686 - Lamb v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A critical concern raised by a jury’s discharge, later recall, and subsequent rendering of a second verdict is the possibility that ‘ “any outside influence” ’ could be brought to bear on the jurors or the jurors could be ‘ “communicated with or tampered with by any person” ’ during the ‘ “very few minutes that transpired between the time of discharge and recall.” ’ Preferred Risk, 395 So.2d at 988 (quoting Masters v. State, 344 So.2d 616, 619 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977)). “At Lamb’s trial, the jury was outside the courtroom and outside the presence and supervision of any officer of the court for a few minutes between its discharge and the recall. Additionally, five members of that jury were completely unavailable and did not participate in that recall. Even if this Court were to somehow overlook the possibility of taint once this jury was formally discharged and beyond the presence and supervision of the court, a significant concern remains that five members of the discharged jury were not available to attempt to correct the inconsistent verdicts. “An additional concern raised by the facts of this and similar cases, as this Court discussed in Preferred Risk, is the appearance of impropriety. 395 So.2d at 987 . The integrity of jury verdicts and their acceptance by the society governed by them are ‘at the very root and branch of the jury system itself.’ 395 So.2d at 987 . What is before us — a correction to inconsistent verdicts on a single count of an indictment by seven members”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. G.V.C. v. State

2. ““The jury delivered two inconsistent verdicts as to count II of the indictment charging Lamb with first-degree sexual abuse, one of which was a written verdict form finding Lamb ‘not guilty,’ which became final when it was accepted by the court and the jury discharged. The jury then left the presence and supervision of the court. Thereafter, neither the jury nor the trial court had the power to alter the verdict. Preferred Risk [Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stuart J, 395 So.2d [980,] at 987 [ (Ala.1981) ]. The written verdict form for count II signed by the jury foreman that was delivered to the court indicated that the jury found Lamb ‘not guilty’ of sexual abuse in the first degree, as charged, and that is the verdict that must stand. Any subsequent alteration of the verdict under the facts of this case would subject Lamb to being placed twice in jeopardy for a crime he had been acquitted of and would violate his rights against double jeopardy under the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution. “The Court of Criminal Appeals’ affir-mance of the Tallapoosa Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of Lamb’s Rule 32 petition therefore must be reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 113 So. 3d 694 - Lamb v. State

3. ““Undertaking to change a jury’s verdict, whether in written or oral form, is unavoidably a substantial change, not a mere correction of a clerical mistake, and such a change should have been noticed, altered, and entered on the record before the jury was discharged, the moment that ‘ends [its] consideration of the case.’ [Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 395 So.2d 980, 986 (Ala.1981) ](citing [St. Clair v. Caldwell & Riddle, 72 Ala. 527 (1882)]). It is clear from the record that the trial court was not making this correction pursuant to Rule 29, Ala. R.Crim. P., because Rule 29 allows the court to make such a correction ‘at anytime of its own initiative.’ Rather, the trial court recalled seven of the discharged jurors, inquired of their intent on the record, re-polled them as to the verdict, and requested that the jury foreman make the necessary correction on the verdict form for count II.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. G.V.C. v. State