Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 494 So. 2d 834 - Barrow v. State

494 So. 2d 834 - Barrow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2012

20 state decisions

801986199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Haynes v. Washington · Davis v. North Carolina · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Sims v. Georgia

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

  1. “It is not necessary that each item of testimony, taken alone, be conclusively shown to prove the guilt of the defendant; but the question is whether each fact, in connection with all others, may be properly considered in forming a chain of circumstantial evidence tending to prove the guilt of the accused.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “‘“The state is not required to prove all that the accused said when he confessed because the accused himself has the right to prove the remainder of his statement.’ McElroy, § 200.17 at 446. ‘A confession is not rendered inadmissible because it is not verbatim as related by the accused and is admissible if its transcription is substantially as related and affirmed by the accused.’ King v. State, 355 So.2d 1148, 1150 (1978). ‘The fact that the written statements signed by the defendant are not exactly, word for word, what he told the investigators is without legal significance.’ Corbin v. State, 412 So.2d 299, 301 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). See also Hobbs v. State, 401 So.2d 276, 282-83 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Carpenter v. State, 400 So.2d 417, 423 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 400 So.2d 427 (1981).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"[A] confession is not inadmissible merely because it was induced by a trick or misrepresentation which was not reasonably calculated to lead the accused to confess falsely." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 200.07(7) at p. 437 (3rd ed. 1977), citing Fincher v. State , 211 Ala. 388 , 100 So. 657 (1924).”
    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.