383 So. 2d 881 - McGee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . It has been consistently held in Alabama that a pre-prosecution lineup in the absence of counsel for an accused does not violate his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel or his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. "In McGee v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 383 So.2d 881 , 882 (1980), writ denied, 383 So.2d 884 , it is stated: " 'The appellant contends he should have been provided counsel at his preindictment lineup and failure to do so violates his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. Consequently, he contends the victim's in-court identification should have been suppressed. The appellant's contention is without merit. A preindictment lineup is not a stage of an adversary judicial criminal proceeding at which the right to counsel attaches as defined in Moore v. Illinois , 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977). See also Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); Hammons v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 371 So.2d 986 (1979).'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walker v. State · 424 So. 2d 1342 - Marks v. State