47 Ala. App. 548 - Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . First , during the trial of a felony the jury is to be kept together; Second , if the jury does separate, that fact is, prima facie, error to reversal; and Third , to overcome this presumption of error, the State has the onus of establishing that the separated juror or jurors were not subject to influence or contacts which might have swayed them in reaching the verdict. "We use `might' to reflect the test of vitiating influence laid down in Roan v. State , 225 Ala. 428 , 143 So. 454 (26), i.e. `not that it did influence a member of the jury to act without the evidence, but that it might have unlawfully influenced that juror and others * * *.' See Oliver v. State , 232 Ala. 5 , 166 So. 615 ." Lee v. State , 47 Ala. App. 548 , 550 , 258 So.2d 743 , 745 (1972).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Ala. App. 341 - Pratt v. State · 354 So. 2d 317 - Simpson v. State

2. ““Pending a trial for a capital felony, the jury should be kept together. During recesses of the court they should be under the care of a sworn officer. If held overnight, provision should be made in advance for their lodging and meals. They .should not be permitted to separate, each going his own way, and choosing his own contacts. There rules are part of the law of criminal procedure sanctioned by the wisdom and experience of ages; safeguards against the hazards of outside contacts, which may, with no fault of the juror, so enter into his thinking as to influence his verdict unawares. “We cannot concur in any notion that we live in an enlightened age where human nature has changed, or a higher standard of conduct warrants an abandonment of safeguards written into the law because they are hoary with age. “In fact, the opportunities for contacts, as well as the means of molding public opinion on mere rumor and propaganda, are enhanced. The passion and ill-feeling among relatives and friends growing out of homicides, rapes, etc., are all here. This is not an age free from guile. Better stay by the ancient landmarks. “In passing upon the guilt or innocence of a citizen on trial for an offense involving his life of liberty, the juror is faced with a responsibility than which there is no greater among men. Charged with the finding of facts and the application of the law as given in charge by the court, any diversion which would tend to becloud his recollection of the testimony is ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burnett v. State

3. ““Separation of jury by consent. — The provisions of this section shall apply only in the circuit court in counties having a population of 140,000 or more according to the last or any subsequent federal census. “If the accused and his counsel and also the prosecuting attorney, in any prosecution for felony, whether capital or non-capital 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. “It shall be improper for the trial court to ask the accused, counsel for the accused, or the prosecuting attorney in the hearing of the jury whether or not he or they will consent to a separation of the jury pending the trial. It shall be improper for the accused or counsel for the accused, or the prosecuting attorney to state to the trial court in the hearing of the jury that he or they consent to a separation of the jury pending the trial. (1943, p. 358, appvd. July 8, 1943.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Ala. App. 341 - Pratt v. State