431 So. 2d 586 - Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 585 So. 2d 97 - Bankhead v. State (1990), 698 So. 2d 189 - Smith v. State (1996)
43 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 Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite · Coleman v. Alabama
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`. . . [T]he general rule is that prejudicial statements, even though improper, are considered capable of being eradicated by the trial judge in sustaining objections thereto or by appropriate instructions to the jury or both. Allred v. State , [ 291 Ala. 34 , 277 So.2d 339 (1973)], supra; Dunn v. State , 277 Ala. 39 at 44, 166 So.2d 878 (1964); Bachelor v. State , 216 Ala. 356 , 361 , 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State , 209 Ala. 36 , 44 , 95 So. 171 (1922).' (Emphasis added). Meredith v. State , 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala. 1979); Miller v. State , 431 So.2d 586 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Whether a witness is available or accessible within the meaning of the rule prohibiting comment upon the failure of a party to call or examine a witness does not mean availability or accessibility for subpoena purposes, but rather a particular party's superior knowledge of the existence, identity, and expected testimony of the witness. Henry [ v. State , 355 So.2d 411 , Ala.Cr.App. 1978], supra; Rueffert v. State , 46 Ala. App. 36 , 237 So.2d 520 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is true that argument by a District Attorney to a jury that a defendant convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary may be eligible for pardon or parole is improper and has been held to be reversible. Eaton v. State , 278 Ala. 224 , 177 So.2d 444 and Lee v. State , 265 Ala. 623 , 93 So.2d 757 . However, it is further held if that argument is in reply to argument by the defense that the defendant, if convicted, will be sentenced to the penitentiary, the rule above referred to does not apply and the district attorney is within his rights in making his reply to a subject first introduced in argument from the defendant. Matthews v. State , 54 Ala. App. 359 , 308 So.2d 718 (1975)."”
1 later decision 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.