Beck v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Under our death penalty statute, the question of sentence is not considered until the determination of guilt is made by the jury at the guilt phase of the bifurcated hearing. Once the jury finds the defendant guilty of one of the aggravated offenses, it fixes the punishment at death. However, it is the trial judge, who, at a separate hearing, determines whether or not the defendant is to suffer death or life imprisonment without parole. The verdict of the jury is advisory only. No sentence exists until the pronouncement by the trial judge at the conclusion of the sentence hearing. It is for this reason the court cannot be said to be commuting a sentence of death imposed by the jury, but, in truth and in fact, it is sentencing the accused after a jury's finding of guilt. "We note, however, that once this sentence has been imposed by the trial judge at the sentencing hearing, it can be commuted by the governor of this State afterwards, at any time, even up to the time of execution. "In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that Alabama's new death penalty statute is constitutionally sound under both the United States and the Alabama Constitutions."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 370 So. 2d 708 - Clements v. State · Baldwin v. Alabama

2. ““In Hafley v. State, 8 Ala.App. 378 , 62 So. 319 (1913), it was held that this statute [§ 12-16-74] does not require that the number (18) of the jury as organized must be maintained to constitute a legal grand jury. There it held that a lesser number would suffice so long as it was at least the minimum set by law. [[Image here]] “Section 89 of T. 30 provides that the ‘concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors is necessary to find an indictment.’ Section 12-16-204, Code of Alabama 1975. “Section 93 of T. 30, [now § 12-16-207] mandates that should the number of grand jurors be reduced below thirteen because of the operation of § 92 of T.30 [now § 12-16-207(a) ], the court shall supply the deficiency. Section 92 requires withdrawal of a grand juror if that juror has some interest in the investigation due to his being charged with the offense under investigation; or if he has been the victim of an offense under investigation; of if he is a prosecutor; or is related by blood or marriage to the person charged. In the event that such a deficiency exists, the court must supply enough grand jurors to fill a box with thirteen or more.[ 2 ] “Under the Constitution of the United States, no requirement exists that a grand jury shall be organized with the same number of jurors as at common law. Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 , 16 S.Ct. 986 , 41 L.Ed. 196 . “In State v. Miller, 3 Ala. 343 , the court held that it was essential to the validity of an indictment that twelve grand jurors concur in”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 753 So. 2d 1211 - State v. Jones

3. “One. That the Defendant, Huey Edward Coon, did intentionally kill John E. Brown in the perpetration of a robbery or attempt thereof of the said John E. Brown. Two. That the Defendant, Huey Edward Coon, committed the capital felony with which he is charged in the commission of a robbery. Three. That the Defendant, Huey Edward Coon, committed the capital felony with which he is charged for pecuniary gain. Four. That the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that Huey Edward Coon killed John E. Brown by beating him about the head and face with a wire, metal milk crate resulting in the death of the said John E. Brown.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 380 So. 2d 980 - Coon v. State