453 So. 2d 367 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The appellant relies on State ex rel. Gregg v. Maples , 286 Ala. 274 , 239 So.2d 198 (1970), wherein the court held that a jury selection procedure which utilized the county voter registration list as the sole and exclusive source of qualified jurors was a `fraud in law,' under the circumstances, because it did not substantially comply with the existing jury selection statutes, statutes which required, on the master jury list, the name of every qualified person in the county. Appellant's reliance on Maples , however, *Page 389 is misplaced because the statutes applicable in Maples have been repealed and replaced by §§ 12-16-55 to -57."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 485 So. 2d 388 - Vaughn v. State

2. “In order to establish *Page 735 a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a `distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 495 So. 2d 733 - Rayburn v. State

3. “Because the specific ground raised at trial waived all other grounds, the issue raised on appeal was not properly preserved for our review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 488 So. 2d 1362 - Lewis v. State