480 So. 2d 29 - Parish v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 805 So. 2d 733 - Dobyne v. State (2000), Jones v. State (1999)
25 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 Hudson v. Palmer · Freeman v. Hall · Brown v. State · 392 So. 2d 1266 - McKinnis v. State · Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unless a juror is asked a question which applies to him in a manner demanding response, it is permissible for a juror to remain silent; the juror is under no duty to disclose.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`Thus, the facts in each case must be considered individually and much will remain in the discretion of the trial judge.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State · Tomlin v. State“" ' "Although a defendant has a right to have questions answered truthfully by prospective jurors, the failure of a juror to make a proper response to a question regarding his qualifications does not automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial. The proper inquiry by this court in such cases is whether the appellant's rights were [probably] prejudiced by the juror's failure to respond properly. Beauregard v. State , Ala. Cr. App., 372 So.2d 37 (1979), cert. denied, Ala., 372 So.2d 44 , and cases cited therein. In Freeman v. Hall , 286 Ala. 161 , 238 So.2d 330 (1970), our supreme court stated: " ' " 'We hold that the proper inquiry for the trial court on motion for new trial, grounded on allegedly improper responses or lack of responses by prospective jurors on voir dire, is whether this has resulted in probable prejudice to the movant. This appears to be the general rule throughout the country [see Annotations, 38 A.L.R.2d 624 , and 63 A.L.R.2d 1061 ]. . . .' " '”
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.