Ex Parte Raines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'To affirm a finding of a "particularized intent to kill,”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Waldrop v. State · Arthur v. State

2. “[T]he accomplice liability doctrine may be used to convict a non-triggerman accomplice, if, but only if, the defendant was an accomplice in the intentional killing as opposed to being an accomplice merely in the underlying felony.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arthur v. State · 577 So. 2d 474 - Kuenzel v. State

3. ““ ‘ “Appellant’s argument that the information would have enabled more effective preparation for trial was rejected in United States v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. [97,] at 112 n. 20, 96 S.Ct. [2392] at 2401 n. 20 [ (1976) ], on the grounds that an argument could always be made that knowledge of the prosecutor’s case, both incriminating and exculpatory, would help defense counsel in preparation of the case for the defense. Therefore, the proper focus is upon the materiality in the nondisclosure or delayed disclosure of exculpatory information in determining the denial vel non of defendant’s rights of due process and fair trial....” ’ “'Ex parte Raines, 429 So.2d 1111, 1113-14 (Ala.1982). Thus, Belisle is not entitled to a new trial simply because having the proffer would have enabled him to more effectively prepare for trial.’”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coral v. State · 79 So. 3d 671 - Patrick Napolean Smith v. State of Alabama.