Johnson 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 prosecutor's argument was a reasonable inference that could have been drawn from the forensic evidence presented at trial and did not constitute error, much less plain error. Russell is due no relief on this claim. B. Russell argues that the prosecutor made two arguments that, he says, inflamed the passions of the jury and resulted in reversible error. 1. Russell argues that the prosecutor improperly argued victim-impact evidence in the guilt phase of his trial. Specifically, he challenges the following statement made at the beginning of the prosecutor's closing arguments:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 So. 3d 397 - Russell v. State

2. “'Counsel in the trial of any lawsuit has the unbridled right (to be sure, the duty) to argue the reasonable inferences from the evidence most favorable to his client.' " Johnson v. State , 553 So.2d 645 , 647 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting Ex parte Ainsworth , 501 So.2d 1269 , 1270 (Ala.1986). "In order for unsupported prosecutorial statements of fact to require reversal, the objectionable statements must be (1) made as of fact, (2) without support by any evidence, (3) pertinent to the issues, and (4) have a natural tendency to influence the finding of the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 So. 3d 397 - Russell v. State