382 So. 2d 632 - Chambers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'When prejudicial remarks have been made, the trial judge is in a better position than the appellate court to determine whether the remarks were so prejudicial as to be ineradicable.' Chambers v. State , 382 So.2d 632 , 635 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 636 (Ala. 1980).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 527 So. 2d 1367 - Soriano v. State · 414 So. 2d 175 - Elmore v. State

2. “'There is a prima facie presumption against error where the trial court immediately charges the jury to disregard the improper remarks or answers.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 588 So. 2d 526 - Hagood v. State · 444 So. 2d 905 - Kendrick v. State

3. “"The appellant argues that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's trial tactics creates reversible error. We have reviewed each and every allegation of error, including others not listed above, and find that the cumulative effect of these alleged errors does not demand a reversal. Some of defense counsel's objections were not well taken, other objections were not raised at trial or were not timely interposed. In some instances the trial judge sustained defense counsel's objections or instructed the jury to disregard. In other instances a ruling was not secured to the objection or motion. In certain cases the prosecutor's questions were entirely proper or at least within the discretion of the trial judge. In other cases the prosecutor's conduct may have been improper yet not prejudicial to the appellant. Since no single instance of alleged improper conduct constituted reversible error, we do not consider their cumulative effect to be any greater."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 406 So. 2d 1045 - Farley v. State