Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 48 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * safeguards against the hazards of outside contacts, which may, with no fault of the juror, so enter into his thinking as to influence his verdict unawares.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burnett v. State · Schofield v. State

2. ““In Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187, 188 , a trial for murder, was presented a situation quite analogous to the instant case. Said this court: Tending argument by attorneys, the jury were allowed to separate over night. This was done after consultation with the solicitor and defendant’s counsel then of record, both consenting. The jury were strictly cautioned by the court with respect to their conduct during the separation, and with one accord the twelve deposed on defendant’s motion for a new trial that they had had no communication whatever with any person concerning the case nor had seen any statement in the newspapers touching the case. By entering into this agreement the prosecution assumed the burden of proving that no abuse resulted from the separation of the jury; but in this case that burden has been well sustained and error can not be affirmed of the court’s action in that behalf. Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 . “Here is a clear announcement that consent of defendant’s counsel to a separation of the jury is subject to his right, on motion for a new trial, to have -the question of harmful effect investigated, with the burden on the state to prove no abuse resulted from the separation of the jury. 4= * * “If the jurors be permitted to separate as here, under instructions from the court, with or without the consent of defendant,' such separation is subject to challenge by motion for new trial, whereupon the burden is upon the state to clearly show no injury re”

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

3. ““While the rule is not now so strict, as at common law, as to the separation of the jury, it is the present rule in felony cases, especially capital ones, that a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Ala. App. 347 - Sullivan v. State