Barney v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Clearly, the purpose of § 13A-6-111, Ala.Code 1975, is to protect children who are using the Internet from being contacted by sexual predators. Several courts have noted the inherent problems in requiring that the sexual predator have contact with an actual child for similar crimes against children. As one court aptly stated: “ ‘[W]e are mindful “of the potential damage that the [defendant’s] position could work on law enforcement under the statute.” [ 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (b)]; see also [United States v.] Everett, 700 F.2d [900] at 907 n. 16 [(3d Cir. 1983) ]. We mention this not because of our own policy preferences, but because it is relevant to Congress’s intent. It is common knowledge that law enforcement rely heavily on decoys and sting operations in enforcing solicitation and child predation crimes.... We consider it unlikely that Congress intended to prohibit this method of enforcement. Indeed, if we were to adopt Tykarsky’s reading of the statute, law enforcement officials would have to use actual minors in conducting sting operations. We do not believe Congress intended such a result.’ “United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 468 (3d Cir.2006). Another court noted similar concerns and stated: “ ‘[U]ndercover officers [have] been forced to resort to extensive investigation and sting operations to ferret out pedophiles who troll the Internet for minors. As [the defendant] interprets the statute, detectives and undercover officers would be unable to police effectively th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tennyson v. State

2. ““Baney’s mistaken belief that he was communicating with a child did not negate the culpable mental state as required by § 13A-6-111, Ala.Code 1975. Also, the clear language of the statute contains no requirement that the recipient of the prohibited transmissions actually be a child, only that the perpetrator’s purpose be to send such sexual material to initiate or to engage in sexual activities with a child. The only logical conclusion that we can reach based on the legislative intent and the fact that ‘mistake of fact’ is not a defense in Ala bama is that § 13A-6-111, Ala.Code 1975, does not require that the perpetrator communicate with an actual child, only that the perpetrator thinks he or she is communicating with a child.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tennyson v. State

3. ““[A] person is guilty of solicitation of a child by a computer if the person is 19 years of age or older and the person knowingly, with the intent to commit an unlawful sex act, entices, induces, persuades, seduces, prevails, advises, coerces, or orders, by means of a computer, a child who is less than 16 years of age and at least three years younger than the defendant, to meet with the defendant or any other person for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse, sodomy, or to engage in a sexual performance, obscene sexual performance, or sexual conduct for his or her benefit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tennyson v. State