Freeman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 1982
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Burgett v. Texas · Espey v. State · 53 Ala. App. 27 - Smith v. State · 55 Ala. App. 272 - Highsmith v. State · 50 Ala. App. 139 - Snipes 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is settled law that conflicts in alibi testimony presented by the accused and identification testimony of the victim in a robbery prosecution is peculiarly within the province of the jury to resolve. For a collection of the cases on this principle see Ala.Dig.Cr.Law, Key No. 739 (2). "Appellant contends the State's case depended on the testimony of the robbery victim alone as against several witnesses for the defense showing that he was elsewhere when the alleged robbery occurred. The answer to appellant's contention is that in our system of criminal justice, we do not travel on the numerical number of witnesses. Smith v. State , 53 Ala. App. 27 , 296 So.2d 925 . "A fact may be established as firmly by the testimony of one witness as by the testimony of an entire community. Savage v. State , 57 Ala. App. 579 , 329 So.2d 638 ; Williams v. State , Ala. Cr. App., 335 So.2d 249 ; Ala.Dig.Cr.Law, Key No. 553. "It is not within the province of the Court of Criminal Appeals to pass judgment on the truthfulness or falsity of conflicting evidence. May v. State , Ala. Cr. App., 335 So.2d 242 ; Snipes v. State , 50 Ala. App. 139 , 277 So.2d 413 ." Freeman v. State , Ala. Cr. App., 350 So.2d 768 (1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The Grand Jury of said County charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Lynn Darnell Williams, alias Lynn D. Williams, feloniously took five hundred and ten dollars in lawful currency or coinage, or currency and coinage, of the United States of America, a better description of which is unknown to the Grand Jury, of the value of $510.00, the property of Carey Chandler, from his person, and against his will, by violence to his person, . . ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.