King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably 50 Ala. App. 707 - Cobb v. State (1973), Tiner v. State (1966)
51 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Desilvey v. State · Oliver v. State · Bell v. State · 32 Ala. App. 644 - Gettings v. State · Helms v. State
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There is no doubt that in Alabama a separation of the jury after the trial has been entered upon and before verdict, creates a ground for reversible error in favor of the defendant unless the State affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injuriously affected. In other words, the separation of the jury does not establish an absolute right to have a mistrial declared or a new trial granted but prejudice must result therefrom in order for a new trial to be granted. The right of the defendant in this respect is only prima facie and when a separation is shown, the burden is on the prosecution to establish affirmatively that the separating jury or juror conversed with no one as to the defendant's guilt and that no other influences were brought to bear on the jury or any of its members which might have biased their deliberations. Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ." King v. State, 266 Ala. 232, 236 , 95 So.2d 816, 819 (1957). (Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The proof shows no undue familiarity between the officers and the juror. In instances of this kind each case stands on its own facts. Bell v. State, 227 Ala. 254 , 149 So. 687 . The fact that the officer in charge of the jury testifies to important facts, does not always disqualify him from having charge of the jury. Harris v. State, 233 Ala. 196 , 172 So. 347 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Pierce · Pierce v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.