487 So. 2d 1022 - Blackmon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In the instant case, the record is silent as to whether the appellant and his attorney were afforded the opportunity to be heard on the issue of consolidation before the trial court's order that the appellant be tried with the other two defendants. Accordingly, we have no choice and do hereby remand this cause to the trial court with directions to make a finding of fact on the issue of whether the appellant, while represented by counsel, was given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of consolidation at some time before the motion to consolidate was granted, to make a record of such proceeding, and forward it to us."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte King · 741 So. 2d 1099 - Merrill v. State

2. “"We cannot agree with the appellate court's statement that this rule was effectively complied with or, if not, any error arising from the failure to comply was harmless. The rule is mandatory when stating 'the court shall not order that the defendants be tried together without first providing the defendants and the prosecutor an opportunity to be heard.' (Emphasis added [in Jones ].) Affording an opportunity to move for severance after consolidation fails to cure the prejudicial error resulting from violation of the rule. "As asserted by petitioners, they have a right to effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against them. Amendment VI, Const. of U.S. Every lawyer experienced in representing persons charged with crimes knows it to be crucial to defense strategy and tactics that he is aware of whether his client is to be tried alone or with another. "We today hold that the purpose of Rule 15.4(b), Alabama Temporary Rules of Criminal Procedure, can only be served by strict compliance with it."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte King · 741 So. 2d 1099 - Merrill v. State

3. “"`"[T]he required inquiry is two-pronged. The first question is whether the initial identification procedure was `unnecessarily' [ Stovall v. Denno , *Page 1054 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)] or `impermissibly' [ Simmons v. U.S. , 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)] suggestive. If it is found to have been so, the court must then proceed to the question whether the procedure found to have been `unnecessarily,' or `impermissibly' suggestive was so `conducive to irreparable mistaken identification' [ Stovall ] or had such a tendency `to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification' [ Simmons ] that allowing the witness to make an in-court identification would be a denial of due process. United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette , 428 F.2d 912 , 914-915 (2d Cir. 1970).'" Raines v. State , 428 So.2d 206 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 965 So. 2d 1112 - Jennings v. State · 997 So. 2d 1049 - BENDOLPH v. State