372 So. 2d 378 - Stringer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Ordinarily one waives any irregularities in the indictment by appearing and pleading in the trial court, and a plea to the merits is considered as an admission of a valid indictment. Johnson v. State , 49 Ala. App. 389 , 272 So.2d 597 (1973); Elliott v. State , 39 Ala. App. 314 , 98 So.2d 618 (1957). . . ."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 374 So. 2d 436 - Crews v. State · 384 So. 2d 641 - Harrison v. State

2. “"The rule governing such procedure is well stated in 70 Corpus Juris page 183, as follows: `Although a prosecuting attorney is competent to testify, his testifying is not approved by the courts except where it is made necessary by the circumstances of the case, and, if he knows before the trial that he will be a necessary witness, he should withdraw and have other counsel prosecute the case. The propriety of allowing the prosecutor to testify is a matter largely within the trial court's discretion. The testimony of a prosecuting attorney has been admitted where, unknown to the attorney before the trial, his testimony became valuable for the purpose of corroborating other witnesses in impeaching a defendant witness; to explain the surprise occasioned by the testimony of a witness called by the prosecuting attorney when such witness contradicts statements made to him previously; to show what happened while he accompanied an officer serving a search warrant; to establish a confession made to him in a case where there is no provisions of law for anyone else to conduct the trial; to show admissions made by defendant to him, and to establish facts occurring before a grand jury. So the prosecuting attorney may testify where the case is tried entirely by an assistant prosecuting attorney.'" (emphasis added)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saranthus v. State · 424 So. 2d 1345 - Waldrop v. State

3. “(t)here is no evidence in the record that the district attorney formed the intention to testify in advance of trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 424 So. 2d 1345 - Waldrop v. State · 492 So. 2d 328 - Tarver v. State