377 So. 2d 1123 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is not generally held to be an abuse of the trial judge's discretion to deny a new trial when the victim's immediate family have sat within the bar of the court, within view of the jury, and when they wept, sobbed aloud, or even fainted. Howard v. State , 273 Ala. 544 , 142 So.2d 685 (1961). Certainly persons so related, just as other spectators at a public trial, may remain as long as they display no prejudicial conduct or behavior. [Citations omitted.] . . . The statements in this matter following Pollard [ v. State , 12 Ala. App. 82 , 68 So. 494 , reversed on other grounds, 193 Ala. 32 , 69 So. 425 (1915)], reflect our thoughts and decision on this issue: " 'The court is charged with a high and important duty not without its difficulties in taking proper care to effect the object of according to the accused, a fair and impartial trial while having due regard to interests of the state. No legal reason except that addressed to the court's discretion was assigned why the widow and children should have been excluded or removed to a different part of the courtroom, and we know of no rule of law that would authorize a court to exclude spectators or other persons from the courtroom, or remove them from the view of the jury, during the progress of a public trial of this nature, except for misconduct or some cause that appealed to the sound discretion of the court in administering substantial justice; and it is only abuse of that discretion that this court can review. The recor”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 398 So. 2d 791 - Lehr v. State · 518 So. 2d 168 - Reeves v. State

2. “'During the entire trial the record gives no indication of any feeling or prejudice or the slightest disorder; and the mere fact that it was a conductor who was killed gave no just reason to exclude these men from the courtroom. This too was largely a matter of discretion, with no abuse thereof shown.' 239 Ala. at 318 , 194 So. at 816.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 518 So. 2d 168 - Reeves v. State

3. “[w]hether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Norman Dennis Martin v. State of Alabama and Circuit Court of Russell County