Ex Parte Arthur’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Arthur v. King (2007), Johnson v. State (1992)
6 federal appellate · 70 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 396 So. 2d 645 - Beck v. State · Ex Parte Cofer · United States v. Dothard · Burroughs v. Georgia · 440 So. 2d 1155 - Brewer v. State
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This exclusionary rule is simply an application of the character rule which forbids the State to prove the accused's bad character by particular deeds. The basis for the rule lies in the belief that the prejudicial effect of prior crimes will far outweigh any probative value that might be gained from them. Most agree that such evidence of prior crimes has almost an irreversible impact upon the minds of the jurors.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stephens v. State · Smith v. State“'All evidence tending to prove a person's guilt of the now-charged crime may be said to identify him as the guilty person. However, the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule is much more specific in that it contemplates the situation where the now-charged crime was committed in a novel and peculiar manner and the state is allowed to show that the accused has committed other similar offenses, in the same novel and peculiar manner , in order to show him the perpetrator of the now-charged crime.' (Emphasis added.) (Footnote omitted.)”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Baker · Marks v. State“"The defendant has raised several issues regarding the fact that the indictment in the present case included a charge that he had been previously convicted of murder in the second degree. Among his contentions is the assertion that the inclusion in the indictment of the prior conviction deprived him of his due process rights. However, it is clear that the prior conviction, which is the aggravating circumstance under § 13A-5-40(a)(13), must be alleged in the indictment in order to afford the defendant due process: "`In Alabama, by statute, the aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the indictment where the death penalty is sought.... The aggravating circumstances must be set forth in the indictment because the state is required to give the accused notice that a greater penalty is sought to be inflicted than a first offense. It is fundamental that the accused must be advised and informed of the nature and extent of the offense with which he is charged. "`Under the Death Penalty Statute, the aggravating circumstance is a statutory element of the crime. Without it, one could not be charged and convicted for "capital murder." ...' (Citations omitted.) " Wilson v. State, 371 So.2d 932, 940 (Ala. Crim.App.1978), aff'd, 371 So.2d 943 (Ala. 1979), vacated on other grounds, 448 U.S. 903 , 100 S.Ct. 3042 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 405 So.2d 696 (Ala.1981) (quoted in Hubbard v. State, 382 So.2d 577, 590 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), aff'd, 382 So.2d 597 (1980), rev'd o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arthur v. State
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.