115 So. 3d 939 - Turner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" 'The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." ' Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 , 42, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Thus, 'the Sixth Amendment [prohibits the admission of] testimonial hearsay [statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted], ... and interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class.' Crawford , 541 U.S. at 53 [ 124 S.Ct. 1354 ] ; see also Id. at 59 n.9 [ 124 S.Ct. 1354 ] ; (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (explaining that the Confrontation Clause 'does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted')). Similarly, under the Alabama Rules of Evidence: " ' "Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by [the Alabama Rules of Evidence], or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama or by statute." Rule 802, Ala. R. Evid. " 'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801(c), Ala. R. Evid.' " Hillard v. State , 53 So.3d 165 , 167 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). Accordingly, " 'It is well settled that[, when offered for the truth of the matter asserted,] a nontestifying codefendant's statement to police implicating the accused in th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State

2. “'It is well settled that[, when offered for the truth of the matter asserted,] a nontestifying codefendant's statement to police implicating the accused in the crime is inadmissible against the accused; it does not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule and ... [it] violates the accused's confrontation rights. See Lee v. Illinois , 476 U.S. 530 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986) ; Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) ; R.L.B. v. State , 647 So.2d 803 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) ; Ephraim v. State , 627 So.2d 1102 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993).' " Jackson v. State , 791 So.2d 979 , 1024 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). See also Lilly v. Virginia , 527 U.S. 116 , 139, 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (holding that the admission of an accomplice's out-of-court confession violated the petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights); Hillard , 53 So.3d at 169 (holding that a codefendant's statement to police was inadmissible hearsay under Rule 802, Ala. R. Evid.).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State

3. “"Here, the State offered evidence establishing that Turner's accomplices gave confessions to police officers and, in those confessions, stated that, during the commission of the crime, Shah 'grabbed the phone[, and Turner] said f*** this and ... shot [Shah].' ... The State also offered evidence that the accomplices told the police officers that Turner murdered Shah. The confessions of Turner's accomplices to police officers were, without a doubt, testimonial. ... Further, during closing arguments, the State used the accomplices' statements to show that Turner intended to kill Shah. ... The State's use of the accomplices' statements during closing argument leaves no room to doubt that the statements were offered for the truth of the matter asserted."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State