356 So. 2d 682 - Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2008
15 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 United States v. Ewell · Shadle v. State · Clemmons v. State · Wallace v. State · West v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he constitutional guarantee to a speedy trial upon which appellant relies cannot be easily transposed to an appeal. The purpose of the guarantee is to prevent long unjustified incarceration or anxiety prior to trial and to limit the possibility that the memory of witnesses may dim or evidence may be lost, thus impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. . . . On the other hand, delay in appeal is not truly prejudicial except in case of reversal. This is not such a case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The same question was presented in Tillison v. State, 32 Ala.App. 397 , 27 So.2d 41 , cert. denied, 248 Ala. 196 , 27 So.2d 46 (1946). The Court of Appeals answered the question presented by stating: "`After the jury had deliberated for a while it returned to the court room for further instruction. The trial judge restated to the jury a portion of his oral charge. Exceptions were taken by appellant. Complaint is made that the trial judge restated a part of his oral charge and in this manner gave added and undue emphasis to said portion. "`We fail to see how this action on the part of the lower court could in any way interfere with the legal rights of the defendant. We take it that the jury came to a place in its deliberation where it wanted further light and it sought this light from the only source open to it. The law wisely gives this opportunity to a jury which at all times has access to the trial court for legal instruction. Montgomery v. State, 21 Ala.App. 327 , 108 So. 348 ; Roberts v. State, 26 Ala.App. 331 , 159 So. 373 .'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Laffity 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.