177 So. 2d 345 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * we find the general rule to be that when an attorney has had dealings with a defendant as a defense counsel and later becomes a prosecutor in the same case, a conviction thereby obtained must be reversed. * * * * * * Assuming therefore that Mr. Allweiss while a public defender did in fact confer with Appellant Young, his later participation in the case as prosecutor was fundamental error, and was a denial of due process. Under Rule 1, if a petitioner shows that he was denied due process he may collaterally attack his conviction. Marti v. State, Fla.App. 3, 1964, 163 So.2d 506 ." (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reddick v. State · 48 Ala. App. 613 - Hannon v. State

2. ““Movant respectfully submits that his constitutional rights were infringed upon at his trial, in that the Assistant State Attorney who prosecuted him at jury trial, Allen Allweiss, had previously been a member of the Public Defender’s Of■fice, which office handled movant’s defense at said Jury Trial. The said Allen Allweiss, while a member of the Public Defender’s office had occasion to interview and interrogate this Movant for purposes of said Movant’s defense. This Movant’s rights were greatly prejudiced by having made statements in preparation for his defense to one who later prosecuted him for said offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Ala. App. 613 - Hannon v. State

3. ““The record in this case indicates that there is an issue of whether the prosecutor at this appellant’s trial had previously served as his defense counsel while a member of the public defender’s staff. We believe a hearing is necessary to determine the issue of fact raised by the petition, and should the allegations be well founded a new trial will be required. We reverse for a hearing and possible new trial in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rule 1.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Ala. App. 613 - Hannon v. State