360 So. 2d 1060 - McElroy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. The appellant in McElroy was convicted of the offense of sale of a controlled substance. In the present case, the conviction is for mere possession of a controlled substance. 2. In McElroy , the police officer not only gave the informant the money to buy the drugs, but also accompanied the informant to the place where the sale took place. In the present case, neither the informant nor the companion took part in the "illegal activity"; i.e., "possession." 3. During the trial of the case the defense attorney in McElroy sought to determine not only the name of the informant, but also a "continuance, if necessary, to secure his attendance here at this trial." Id. at 1063 . In the present case, defense counsel did not ask for a continuance and did not ask permission to subpoena the informant or her companion. 4. The defense counsel in McElroy did not know the name of the confidential informant until the day of trial. In the present case, it is apparent that defense counsel knew the names of the companion, as well as the informant, prior to trial, but did not subpoena them or ask for a continuance once their identity was verified.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 494 So. 2d 777 - Allen v. State

2. “"The primary purpose for the disclosure of an informer's name or identity is to prevent a miscarriage of justice in cases where an accused might have been entrapped into committing the offense for which he is prosecuted. The fundamental requirements of fairness compels disclosure in such cases where the informer plays a major and active part in bringing about the sale of narcotics and continues [as] an active participant therein."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 420 So. 2d 798 - Self v. State

3. “"The general rule that the identity of an informer is privileged and may not be revealed, does not apply in the present set of facts, where the informer, at the instigation, and in the presence of the officer, was an active participant with the accused at the commission of the offense." Id. at 1064 . Quoting Davenport v. State, 50 Ala.App. 321 , 278 So.2d 769, 722 (1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 494 So. 2d 777 - Allen v. State