370 So. 2d 330 - Alexander v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2011
10 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 Brewer v. Williams · 347 So. 2d 1377 - Ex Parte Thompson · Brister v. State · 347 So. 2d 1371 - Thompson v. State · 20 Ala. App. 49 - Biddle 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.
“"`The fact that a defendant has an attorney does not mean, as a per se rule, that law enforcement officials cannot procure a statement of any kind from the defendant without prior notice to, if not the consent of, the attorney.' This rule was fully discussed and applied in Thompson v. State , 347 So.2d 1371 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 347 So.2d 1377 (Ala. 1977). In Brewer v. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 , 97 S.Ct. 1232 , 1243 , 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), the United States Supreme Court implicitly rejected any such `per se' rule."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The rule is that ‘a witness may testify as to facts within his knowledge, although his recollection thereof is vague or imperfect’. 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 54 (1957). “ ‘The law does not require absolute or positive knowledge or perfect recollection in a witness. His knowledge is sufficient if he had an opportunity of personal observation and did get some impressions even if his recollection is faint. “ ‘When it appears that the witness had an opportunity to observe the facts about which he offers to testify, and that his testimony signifies only imperfect observation or imperfect recollection, there is no valid objection to admitting the testimony.’ “C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 115.01(1) (3rd ed.1977). “The fact that Deputy Perkins could not remember the appellant’s manner of dress, what the appellant said word for word (‘that’s the reason I wrote the statement’); the weather; and certain other details of the day and time the appellant confessed goes to the weight and credibility to be given his testimony but not to its admissibility. Pond v. State, 55 Ala. 196 (1876); Brister v. State, 26 Ala. 107 (1855); Walker v. Blassingame, 17 Ala. 810 (1850).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Revis 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.