460 So. 2d 320 - Warrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 494 So. 2d 124 - Magwood v. State (1985), 534 So. 2d 329 - Hooks v. State (1987)
45 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Oregon v. Mathiason · Beckwith v. United States · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States · United States v. Montos
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Questions that ask venirepersons whether they know any of the individuals involved in the case, whether they know any of the facts of the case, and whether any of the venire has ever been the victim of a crime are all important considerations that determine the impartiality and fairness of a trial proceeding. When these questions and others are answered falsely, either by vocal assertions or by intentional or indifferent silence, which in many cases is perhaps the most detrimental, an accused is denied his right to challenge for cause and has in fact been deceived into forgoing his right of a peremptory strike.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“According to Terry v. State , 397 So.2d 217 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), Miranda warnings are not required in instances where inculpatory or otherwise admissible statements are made to persons who are not law enforcement officers or their agents.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The fact that a photo is gruesome and ghastly, if it has some relevancy to the proceeding, is no reason to exclude its admission into evidence, even if the photograph may tend to inflame the jury.' Warrick v. State , 460 So.2d 320 , 323 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), and cases cited therein.”
2 later decisions 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.