39 Ala. App. 29 - Beddow v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably 362 So. 2d 1296 - Anderson v. State (1978), 52 Ala. App. 260 - Barnett v. State (1974)
2 federal appellate · 73 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 Patton v. State · Teague v. State · Montgomery v. State · 17 Ala. App. 469 - Montgomery v. State · 38 Ala. App. 351 - Hunter 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The sequestration of witnesses under ‘The Rule’ while rarely to be withheld upon request, is nevertheless discretionary with the trial court. And, where, for instance, a witness has remained in the courtroom in violation of the rule, the trial court’s decision as to his testifying or not is not open to review. Wilson v. State, 52 Ala. 299 ; Teague v. State, 245 Ala. 339 , 16 So.2d 877 . Moreover, the efficacy of sequestration— which can only occur during the trial — is probably overrated. The law has moved from oath-taking to cross examination in its search for the truth.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““Also there was certified to us a transcript of the hearing held on Beddow’s motion for a change of venue, which was based on prejudice against him because of newspaper articles. Beddow was a Birmingham police officer at the time of the alleged offense and complained that the press was giving undue notice to his arrest. He further claimed he was being given too speedy a trial in the circumstances. His motion was overruled and an exception granted. “We have before us the testimony of six witnesses, exhibits, and a record statement by the court below. The exhibits consist of clippings from the Birmingham newspapers narrating the charges against, and arrest of the defendant and Hunter. We note the testimony that at that time (November 9, 1953) Jefferson County had a population of 500,000 or upwards, and the judge stated that there were over 40,000 men whose names were in the jury box. See 56 Am.Jur., Venue, Section 70, n. 11. “We find nothing in the clippings of an inflammatory character. The reports were in narrative form and purported to be interviews with the police officials. Newspaper articles, without more, are not evidence here; their effect must be shown. The testimony of the six witnesses did not meet the burden of persuasion. Moreover, the trial Court, though denying the change of venue, passed the case for four weeks. “Altogether, considering the size of the jury box, the four-week continuance, and the defendant’s right through putting the veniremen on the voir dire t”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Elliott 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.