50 Ala. App. 88 - Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Daniels v. State , 50 Ala. App. 88 , 277 So.2d 364 (1973), involved a prosecution for robbery. The state's chief witness against the defendant had also been indicted for the robbery. "`The fact that Bailey was jointly indicted with the appellant will not per se raise a presumption that he was an accomplice. * * * According to Bailey's testimony he was unaware that appellant and the others were intending to commit a robbery. Whether this testimony was believable was for the jury. This issue was properly submitted to the jury via given written requested charges and decided adversely to appellant.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 515 So. 2d 101 - Fortier v. State · 364 So. 2d 397 - Jacks v. State

2. ““We heartily recommend the in camera procedure set out in Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, at p. 354 , 79 S.Ct. 1217 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 , i. e., when it is doubtful whether there exists a ‘statement’ as defined in this opinion, then the trial judge should confer with counsel, the defendant being present, apart from the jury to reach a determination as to the existence of any such alleged statement. The proceedings should be taken by the official court reporter to be made as part of the record.””

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