473 So. 2d 627 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2013
15 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 Burks v. United States · Ball v. United States · United States v. Ewell · Ingraham v. Wright · Reina v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Jurors should not be permitted, while in the discharge of their duty, to read newspapers containing statements of fact pertaining to the trial. Leith v. State , 206 Ala. 439 , 444 , 90 So. 687 (1921). 'However, the fact that a juror has read a newspaper in which the case is discussed does not entitle the defendant to an automatic mistrial.' Wiggins v. State , 429 So.2d 666 , 668 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[I]t is improper for the prosecution to call as a witness one whom it knows will certainly invoke the privilege against testifying on the ground of self-incrimination, with the sole purpose or design of having the jury observe that invocation. Obviously, it is difficult to demonstrate that the prosecution had this sole purpose or design, and it would be necessary, in any event, to demonstrate prejudice to the accused in order to effect the reversal of a conviction.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'It is error for the prosecution to call an accomplice or another witness to testify for the state if he knows the witness will invoke the Fifth Amendment.' N. Chiarkas, Alabama Criminal Trial Practice 219 (1981). See Busby v. State , 412 So.2d 837 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Shockley v. State , 335 So.2d 659 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975), affirmed, 335 So.2d 663 (Ala. 1976); Allison v. State , 331 So.2d 748 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 331 So.2d 751 (Ala. 1976).”
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.