482 So. 2d 1336 - Parker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held, that 'the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.' 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196 -97 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 218 . ' "A fair analysis of the holding in Brady indicates that implicit in the requirement of materiality is a concern that the suppressed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial." United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 2398 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).' Parker v. State , 482 So.2d 1336 at 1340 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). Thus, where the prosecutor fails to disclose evidence, regardless of its admissibility or its trustworthiness, the crucial question is whether the non-disclosure might have affected the outcome of the trial. State v. Kimberly , 463 So.2d 1106 , 1108 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), rev'd, Ex parte Kimberly , 463 So.2d 1109 (Ala. 1984)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 549 So. 2d 601 - Bates v. State · 528 So. 2d 343 - Robinson v. State

2. “In Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held, that 'the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.' 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196 -97 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 218 . '”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maples v. State · 528 So. 2d 343 - Robinson v. State

3. “"`Even where there is total non disclosure of information the test is whether the use of the information at trial would have changed the result by creating a reasonable doubt where one did not otherwise exist. United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Jones v. State , 396 So.2d 140 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). As the United States Supreme Court stated in Beck v. Washington , 369 U.S. 541 , 558 , 82 S.Ct. 955 , 964 , 8 L.Ed.2d 98 (1962): "`"While this Court stands ready to correct violations of constitutional rights, it also holds that it is not asking too much that the burden of showing essential unfairness be sustained by him who claims such injustice and seeks to have the result set aside, and that it be sustained not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality. United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy , 351 U.S. 454 , 462 [ 76 S.Ct. 965 , 970 , 100 L.Ed. 1331 ] (1956).'" "Raines v. State , 429 So.2d 1104 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 429 So.2d 1111 (Ala. 1982)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 557 So. 2d 1339 - Bradley v. State · 530 So. 2d 250 - Gardner v. State