48 Ala. App. 111 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law is clear that a defendant in a criminal case is not constitutionally entitled to demand a proportionate number of his own race on the jury which tries him, nor on the jury roll from which grand and petit jurors are selected. Cassell v. Texas , 339 U.S. 282 , 70 S.Ct. 629 , 94 L.Ed. 839 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clisby v. State · Elliott v. State

2. “"It is further settled that on appeal, when error is predicated upon an exception to the action of the trial court in sustaining an objection by the other party to questions propounded to a witness, the trial court will not be put in error, unless it appears that it was made known to [the] court what testimony it was expected to elicit by the question, and unless it further appears that it was material to the issues in the case. . . . Here we do not know what answer the witness would have given to the question, and cannot say, therefore, whether it would be material to the issue; but our lack of information is not due to any failure or neglect on the part of defendant's counsel to attempt, by established methods, to properly inform us and the court below, but to the action of the trial court in refusing to permit him to do so. In this the court was in error. The Constitution guarantees to the accused the right to be heard by himself and counsel, or either. If the court feared that a statement from defendant's counsel as to what he expected to prove by the witness might improperly prejudice the jury, the court should have had the jury to retire, pending the hearing; but certainly the court should not have foreclosed the defendant's counsel of his right to be heard, and thereby rendered it impossible for a reviewing court to pass on the relevancy and competency of the testimony he offers to produce." (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 382 So. 2d 598 - Ex Parte Fields

3. ““Whether there is sufficient corroborative evidence to go to the jury is a question for the court to decide; whether the evidence is sufficiently corroborated to warrant a conviction is a question for the jury. Fagan v. State, 35 Ala.App. 13 , 44 So.2d 634 ; Smothers v. State, 38 Ala.App. 153 , 83 So.2d 374 ; Freeman v. State, 41 Ala.App. 512 , 138 So.2d 56 . “Corroboration, to be legally sufficient, must be unequivocal and of a substantive character. It must be inconsistent with innocence of the defendant and do more than raise a suspicion of guilt. Sorrell v. State, 249 Ala. 292 , 31 So.2d 82 . Corroborating evidence need not refer to any particular statement or fact testified to by an accomplice, but if it strengthens the probative criminating force of the accomplice’s testimony and tends to con nect the defendant with the commission of the offense, it is sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Smith v. State, 230 Ala. 413 , 161 So. 538 ; Smothers v. State, 38 Ala.App. 153 , 83 So.2d 374 ; English v. State, 38 Ala.App. 377 , 84 So.2d 673 . “Evidence of flight after the crime may be considered as corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice. Prophett v. State, 25 Ala.App. 20 , 141 So. 257 ; Freeman v. State, 41 Ala.App. 512 , 138 So.2d 56 .””

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