Pogue v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although the incompetency of a juror because he is not a resident of the county in which the trial was had is ground for a challenge for cause, `the right to challenge ends, when the persons selected are sworn as jurors.' Carson v. Pointer, 11 Ala.App. 462, 465 , 66 So. 910 (1914), quoting from Henry v. State, 77 Ala. 75, 77 (1884). Carson held that although a juror on his voir dire examination by the court stated that he was a resident of the county, and the appellant did not discover the contrary until after the verdict, the verdict could not then be impeached. See also the following from Batson v. State, 216 Ala. 275, 280 , 113 So. 300 (1927). "`That juror Davies was not a citizen of the county and state was a ground of challenge as a juror .... (authorities omitted) It did not invalidate the verdict and judgment rendered by his not being challenged. Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U.S. 293 , 16 S.Ct. 304 , 40 L.Ed. 432 ; Raub v. Carpenter, 187 U.S. 159 , 23 S.Ct. 72 , 47 L.Ed. 119 .... The objection that the juror is an alien comes too late after the jury was qualified generally by the court, as indicated, and put to and accepted by the parties. Herndon v. State, 2 Ala.App. 118 , 56 So. 85 ; Carson v. Pointer, 11 Ala.App. 462 , 66 So. 910 .' " Golden v. State, 39 Ala.App. 361, 370 , 103 So.2d 52 , cert. denied, 267 Ala. 456 , 103 So.2d 62 (1958), `pretermit(ed) any consideration as to whether or not Carson v. Pointer ... is still valid' since the question was unlikely to arise on ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 681 So. 2d 1373 - General Motors Corp. v. Hopper · 475 So. 2d 891 - Huckabaa v. State

2. “"[H]is proper address was given on the list of prospective jurors. When defense counsel discovered the ground for challenge he had no more information before him than he did when he accepted the jury. Since the objection could have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the jury was being qualified, it does not constitute a proper ground for a motion for a new trial. Although counsel was not required to conduct a voir dire examination which would be repetitious of that already conducted by the court, the fact remains that the ground of challenge could have been discovered before trial just as easily as it was discovered after trial."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 681 So. 2d 1373 - General Motors Corp. v. Hopper · 684 So. 2d 132 - Ex Parte Toyota Motor Corp.

3. “(T)he mere fact that she resided in an adjoining county does not per se require the reversal of this cause. Non residency in such a case does not impute prejudice per se.... Therefore, there is no inherent prejudice attributed to a trial by a non resident or non residents of the county in which the offense was committed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 475 So. 2d 891 - Huckabaa v. State · 809 So. 2d 841 - Apicella v. State