Tucker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Clayton v. State, 45 Ala.App. 127, 129 , 226 So.2d 671, 672 (1969).' Beauregard v. State, 372 So.2d 37, 43 (Ala. Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Beauregard, 372 So.2d 44 (Ala.1979). `This Court must determine whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion in light of the circumstances of each case, looking particularly to those reasons the defendant presented to the trial judge.' Tucker v. State, 429 So.2d 1165, 1169 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 518 So. 2d 749 - Hays v. State · 447 So. 2d 860 - Connor v. State

2. “"Although the defendant did not request the trial judge to instruct the jury as to his failure to testify, the trial judge did not err in giving such an instruction. Smith v. State , 370 So.2d 312 , 316 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 319 (Ala. 1979), specifically noted that `a trial court's inclusion in its oral charge of a reference to failure of a defendant to testify in the case does not necessarily constitute error, even though the allusion to his not testifying was made without defendant's request and contrary to his expressed desire.' Smith held that `if an instruction as to the failure of the defendant to testify is given, without its being requested by the defendant, it should set forth completely and clearly as possible the protective feature to the defendant of the principle.' 370 So.2d 318 . See also Tinsley v. State , 395 So.2d 1069 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 395 So.2d 1080 (Ala. 1981)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 485 So. 2d 351 - Crowe v. State

3. ““The constitutional standard of juror impartiality does not require that jurors be wholly ignorant of the facts and issues involved in the case. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). Thus, exposure does not impair the defendant’s right to an impartial jury if the jurors can lay aside any impressions or opinions that result from pretrial media exposure and render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented during the trial. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800 , 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 199 So. 3d 173 - Lam Luong v. State