423 So. 2d 268 - Millican v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2013
15 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 Palermo v. United States · 35 Ala. App. 147 - Wyatt v. State · 50 Ala. App. 49 - Cooks v. State · Smith v. State · 31 Ala. App. 571 - Mullins 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State's witness who testified before the grand jury or before a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony . . . the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness' grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecution; (2) and that there exists an inconsistency between grand jury testimony and trial testimony. Unless defense counsel is merely going on a fishing expedition, he will have some information as to the particular inconsistency in the defendant's testimony. In this case no such showing was made and the existence of any inconsistency between the witness' trial and grand jury testimony was never even alleged. . . . Also, there was no showing that the witness' grand jury testimony, if available, was 'of such nature that without it the defendant's trial would be fundamentally unfair.' " " '. . . . " 'Once the defendant has laid a proper predicate for the impeachment of a witness who testified before the grand jury, the trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection . . . to determine (1) whether the statement made by the witness before the grand jury "differed in any respects from statements made to the jury during trial,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stanley v. State · Ex Parte Marek“Alabama Code 1975, Sections 12-16-214 through 226.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“was of such a nature that without it the defendant's trial would be fundamentally unfair.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.