489 So. 2d 673 - Pickett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" 'The formula applied to the corroboration statute, Ala. Code § 12-21-222 (1975), requires that the evidence of the accomplice must first be 'eliminated and then, if upon review of all other evidence before the trial court at the time of the motion to exclude, there is found to be sufficient incriminating evidence which would tend to connect the accused with the crime, sufficient corroboration exists, Ware v. State , 409 So.2d 886 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), cert. denied , 409 So.2d 883 (Ala. 1982); Mills v. State , 408 So.2d 187 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); McCoy [ v. State , 397 So.2d 577 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981)], supra. Slaton v. State , 397 So.2d 227 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 397 So.2d 332 (Ala. 1981).'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 500 So. 2d 494 - Johnson v. State · 545 So. 2d 205 - Mullis v. State

2. “"A conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and such corrobarative evidence, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or circumstances thereof, is not sufficient."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 500 So. 2d 494 - Johnson v. State · 545 So. 2d 205 - Mullis v. State

3. “' "The corroboration of an accomplice must tend to connect the accused with the commission of the crime but need not refer to any statement or fact testified to by the accomplice. 'Corroborate means to strengthen, to make stronger; to strengthen, not the proof of any particular fact to which the witness has testified, but to strengthen the probative, criminating force of his testimony' . . . The corroborative evidence need not be strong, nor sufficient of itself to support a conviction, the criterion being that it legitimately tend to connect the accused with the offense. . . . Corroborative evidence need not directly confirm any particular fact nor go to every material fact stated by the accomplice. . . . Corroborative evidence need not directly connect the accused with the offense but need only tend to do so. . . . ('[B]ut, as we read the cases, the corroboratory evidence, if it meets the test of "tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense," need not be, in and of itself alone, that tending in any wise to fasten guilt upon the defendant'); 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 812(3)(1961). The sufficiency of corroborating evidence is established if its probative value tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. . . . The corroboration of an accomplice may be shown by circumstantial evidence." (Citations omitted). Andrews v. State , 370 So.2d 320 , 322 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 370 So.2d 323 (Ala. 1979).' Harris v. State , 420 So.2d 812 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 500 So. 2d 494 - Johnson v. State