Harris 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 evidence at trial revealed that, at approximately 1:00 a.m. on May. 28, 2013, an individual broke into a liquor store and stole 12 bottles of liquor. Testimony revealed that the person gained entry into the store by breaking out the glass on the front door. Video-surveillance footage was shown to the jury as well as still photographs taken from the video. “Harris’s main'argument at trial was that the individual depicted in the video was not him. During opening- statements, defense counsel asked Harris to stand up and remove his coat so that the jury could look at him. ... Defense counsel asked the jury to pay attention to Harris’s physique and. to compare it with the physique of the individual in the video. During Harris’s closing argument, defense counsel again referred to Harris and stated: “ ‘[Y]ou’ve seen the video. My client is a larger man than the individual who broke into the ABC [liquor] Store that morning in thé shoulders, in the waist; “T had him stand Up and remove his jacket so that the jacket didn’t appear to make him larger than he actually is. We’re not trying to hide anything. “ ‘Y’all hacl an opportunity to view him. You’ve had an opportunity to see him, perhaps in the hallway walking around, to get a good look. He’s a larger man than the individual that is in this video. “ ‘Additionally, when you look at the face of the individual who is in the video and in the. still shots, this man right here appears much, much, older in the face than my client does,”

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

2. ““ ‘Section 15-14-4, Code of Alabama 1975, gives a trial court permission to allow the introduction of additional evidence “at any time before the conclusion of argument ,... ” § 15-14-4, Ala. Code 1975 (emphasis added). Further, “[bjefore the jury retires to begin deliberation of the case, the court, upon a showing of good cause, may allow the case to be reopened.” Rule 19.1(h), Ala. R. Crim. P. (emphasis added). See Charles W. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 436.01(2)(5th ed. 1996). “Although it is within the discretion of the trial court to reopen the case after the close of evidence, it is clear that cases construing § 15-14-4 have consistently held it to be error to do so after submission of the case to the jury.” Harris v. State, 371 So.2d 979, 983 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 371 So.2d 984 (Ala. 1979), and cases cited therein. See also Reed v. State, 475 So.2d 641 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)(hold-ing that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to have three additional pages of a report after only one page of the report had been referred to during the trial). Cf. Jolly v. State, 405 So.2d 76 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)(fínding no error where the trial judge allowed in ... photographic negatives, which the jury requested to see after it had begun its deliberations, which depicted a tag appearing on the automobile used by the robbers because, during the course of the trial, there had been oral testimony about the negatives).’”

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

3. ““Moreover, we cannot say that this error was harmless. There were no eyewitnesses to the burglary, nor did police discover any fruits of the crime in Harris’s possession. Additionally, there was no physical evidence linking Harris to the crime. The State’s entire case centered on whether the jury believed- that the individual depicted in the surveillance footage was Harris.” '”

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