50 Ala. App. 227 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . The line-up was not tainted and the circumstances do not show an unfairly constituted line-up, nor was it shown to have been conducted in such an unnecessarily suggestive manner as to be conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. Even if the line-up were to be thought to be violative of due process, the in-court identification need not be rejected if it is shown to have a source independent of the line-up. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence before the trial court, some already alluded to, to show that the in-court identification by the rape victim had an independent origin, hence, fulfilling the legal requirements. United States v. Wade , supra; Houston v. State , 49 Ala. App. 403 , 272 So.2d 610 ; Foster v. California , 394 U.S. 440 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 ; Redmon v. State , 47 Ala. App. 421 , 255 So.2d 604 . "Had the defendant not been represented by counsel at the preliminary and the line-up held on day following the crime, there still would be no error. In Houston v. State , supra, we said: "`The defendant also argues that error was committed because the defendant did not have counsel at the time of the line-up. "`The United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 , * * *, stated: "`". . . it has been firmly established that a person's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings have b”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 57 Ala. App. 525 - Spears v. State · 373 So. 2d 1175 - McLoyd v. State

2. “[w]hen a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 52 Ala. App. 167 - Culbert v. State · 434 So. 2d 844 - Ex Parte Meeks

3. ““Of necessity a wide discretion must be allowed the trial judge in regulating the argument of counsel. Trials are adversary in nature. Vigorous prosecution and defense is to be expected. Neither defense counsel nor the prosecutor should be too closely hampered by niceties of speech if he is to be effective, but should be permitted to say his say in his own style. This of course does not mean that unfair and prejudicial argument is to be condoned for one instant. All argument of counsel is to be measured in the background and atmosphere of courtrooms. And as stated in Arant v. State, 232 Ala. 275 , 167 So. 540, 544 , ‘Such statements are usually valued by the jury at their true worth * * * and not expected to become factors in the formulation of their verdicts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. State