49 Ala. App. 233 - Thigpen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

126 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... we do not deem the constitutional right to compulsory process in a criminal case to operate in such a manner as to compel pretrial discovery as to who in fact are witnesses for the State. Rather, the law assumes that defense counsel will act with due diligence so as to have such witnesses as necessary available at trial. Then, by way of compulsory process for obtaining such witnesses, the defendant is secured of a proper presentation of his case at trial...."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 51 Ala. App. 540 - Dolvin v. State · Tomlin v. State

2. ““In the first place, it is now quite clear that a defendant in a criminal case is not constitutionally entitled to demand a proportionate number of his race on the jury which tries him, nor on the venire, or grand jury which indicted him. Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 , 70 S.Ct. 629 , 94 L.Ed. 839 ; Swain v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 . “We feel that the applicable rule of law is to be found in Junior v. State, 47 Ala.App. 518 , 257 So.2d 844 , cert. denied 288 Ala. 744 , 257 So.2d 852 , as follows: “ ‘The appellant’s contention in this case must be grounded upon proof that Negroes [and those persons between the ages of twenty one and thirty] have been the victims of improper discrimination and exclusion from jury service in the jury selection process. But purposeful discrimination must be proven and may not be assumed or merely asserted, and the quantum of proof necessary to establish such fact is a matter of federal law. Swain, supra.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Ala. App. 493 - Brantley v. State

3. “" Irregularities not constituting grounds to quash venire. — It shall not be a ground to quash the venire or to continue any case of the kinds referred to in this subdivision . . . that any of the jurors summoned have failed or refused to attend court, . . . or that a judge, either in open court or otherwise has, for any cause, excused any juror summoned for service for the week in which said case is set for trial. (1959, p. 956, § 8, appvd. Nov. 6, 1959; 1961, Ex.Sess., p. 2276, appvd. Sept. 15, 1961.) "Note. — The 1961 amendment deleted 'with the consent of the defendant' between the words 'has' and 'for' near the end of this section."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 534 So. 2d 628 - Daniels v. State