Reeves v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"If the accused and his counsel and also the prosecuting attorney, in any prosecution for a capital felony consent thereto in open court, the trial court in its discretion may permit the jury trying the case to separate during the pendency of the trial, whether the jury has retired or not. A separation so permitted shall not create a presumption of prejudice to that accused, but on the contrary it shall be prima facie presumed that the accused was not prejudiced by reason of the separation of the jury."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 638 So. 2d 1360 - Rogers v. State · 638 So. 2d 1360 - Ex Parte Musgrove

2. “"The case law of this state has consistently held the institution of a civil suit arising out of the same facts as a criminal prosecution to be within the permissible scope of cross-examination to show bias on the part of the witness. This rule is augmented by the public policy of this state as codified in § 12-21-137, Code 1975, which mandates the right of every party to a `thorough and sifting' cross-examination of the opponent's witnesses. Riley v. City of Huntsville, 379 So.2d 557 (Ala.1980). "The general rule, from which the more narrow rule here under consideration evolved, is stated in Green v. State, 258 Ala. 471 , 64 So.2d 84 (1953): "It is always competent on cross-examination to make such interrogation of a witness as would tend to test his interest, bias or prejudice or to illustrate or impeach the accuracy of his testimony. See also, Morrison v. State, 267 Ala. 1 , 100 So.2d 744 (1957). "In the discharge of its fact finding functions the jury's search for the truth includes the paramount right to consider a witness's motivation, and any evidence testing `his interest, bias or prejudice' so as to illustrate or impeach the accuracy of his testimony' is a competent, material and relevant subject of cross-examination, and the jury's right to be given such evidence is, of itself, part of the fact finding process. Green v. State, supra."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 824 So. 2d 804 - Grayson v. State · 495 So. 2d 104 - Moody v. State

3. “'The general rule, from which the more narrow rule here under consideration evolved, is stated in Green v. State , 258 Ala. 471 , 64 So.2d 84 (1953): " ' "It is always competent on cross examination to make such interrogation of a witness as would tend to test his interest, bias or prejudice or to illustrate or impeach the accuracy of his testimony.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 824 So. 2d 804 - Grayson v. State · 698 So. 2d 228 - Akin v. State