414 So. 2d 1014 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walker v. State · 588 So. 2d 509 - Goodson v. State

2. “"A search warrant is not required when the party in control of the searched premises gives his consent to the search, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 , 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2045 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). The consent, however, must be `freely and voluntarily given,' and the prosecution has the burden of proving voluntariness, Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 , 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1791 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968). Consent given after a claim of authority to search by a police officer is not valid, since he has in effect told the occupant of the house that he has no right to resist the search. `Where there is coercion there cannot be consent.' 391 U.S. at 550 , 88 S.Ct. at 1792 . However, `knowledge of a right to refuse is not a prerequisite of a voluntary consent.' 412 U.S. at 234 , 93 S.Ct. at 2051 . Although consent may not be coerced, either explicitly or implicitly, `[v]oluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances.' 412 U.S. at 248-49 , 93 S.Ct. at 2058-59 . While knowledge of the right to refuse consent to a search, or lack thereof, is a factor to be considered in assessing voluntariness, it is not determinative. 412 U.S. at 249 , 93 S.Ct. at 2059 ." Jackson v. State, 414 So.2d 1014 at 1021 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Phillips v. State

3. “"[T]here is no prohibition against a viewing of the suspect alone in what is termed a `one-man show-up' when such occurs near the time of the alleged offense. Matthews [v. State , 401 So.2d 241 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1981)], supra; King [v. State , 395 So.2d 489 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981)], supra; Donahoo [v. State , 371 So.2d 68 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 371 So.2d 74 (Ala. 1979)], supra; Peavy [v. State , 368 So.2d 43 (Ala.Crim.App. 1979)], supra. While a show-up by its inherent nature is suggestive because the witness is given no other choice, Brazell [v. State , 369 So.2d 25 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 31 (Ala. 1979)], supra; such is not per se violative of due process. The question is whether under the totality of the circumstances the identification was reliable. Cartee v. State , 390 So.2d 1121 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 390 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1980)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 473 So. 2d 652 - Johnson v. State