Vernon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 112 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Extrajudicial confessions of guilt by an accused on trial for crime are prima facie involuntary, and the burden rests upon the state to overcome this prima facie infirmity by evidence satisfactory to the court trying the case that the confession was voluntarily made, before such confession can be received in evidence. It is the right of the accused to controvert evidence offered in laying such predicate by cross-examination, or by evidence aliunde, but such countervailing evidence impeaching the predicate to be successful must be' offered on the voir dire, before the confession is admitted. Lockett v. State, 218 Ala. 40 , 117 So. 457 ; Cook v. State, 16 Ala.App. 390 , 78 So. 306 ; Pope v. State, 183 Ala. 61 , 63 So. 71 ; Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76 , 3 So. 847 . “If such countervailing evidence is not offered until after the preliminary question of the admissibility of the confession is passed on by the court it goes to the jury on the credibility of the confession only. Lockett v. State, supra; Cook v. State, supra.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Seward · White v. State.

2. ““So, also, that objections going to the venire of the petit jury or any member thereof, must be made before entering upon the trial of the case on its merits under the defendant’s plea of not guilty, .and a failure to make such objections constitutes a waiver. Peterson v. State, 227 Ala. 361 , 150 So. 156 . This rule has its exceptions as when the defendant is misled by the false oath and fraud of a venireman, and thereby induced to accept such venireman on the jury. 20 R.C.L. 242, § 27. “It is not permissible for the defendant, who has not been so misled, to participate in the selection of the jury without objections, speculate on winning a favorable verdict, and failing to do so, allow him to raise such questions on a motion for new -.trial. Simpson v. Golden, 114 Ala. 336 , 21 So. 990 ; Hoskins v. Hight, 95 Ala. 284 , 11 So. 253 ; Barron v. Robinson, et al., 98 Ala. 351 , 13 So. 476 ; Fulwider v. Jacob, 221 Ala. 124 , 127 So. 818 . “We observe that there is nothing in the record going to show that defendant and his counsel were not fully informed and had knowledge of the facts averred in said several grounds when he entered his plea and entered upon the trial. See Fulwider v. Jacob, supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Redus v. Williams