Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Henderson v. State (1990), 588 So. 2d 561 - Smith v. State (1991)
26 state decisions
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 · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · North Carolina v. Butler · Burgett v. Texas · Michel v. United States
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.
“'[W]hen an accused volunteers a confession to a person who is not a law enforcement official or agent and has no connection whatever with law enforcement authorities, who has no interest whatever in the prosecution of the accused, is not in a position to promise or give the accused anything to compensate for his confession or to harm him for not making a confession, and there was no occasion whatever on the part of the person to whom the confession was made to have threatened the defendant if he did not confess or to make him any promise if he did confess, the confession under such circumstances is voluntary and admissible in evidence. Ellis v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 428 , 432 (1976); Kircheis v. State , 56 Ala. App. 526 , *Page 1004 323 So.2d 412 (1975), cert. denied, 295 Ala. 409 , 323 So.2d 421 .' Primm v. State , 473 So.2d 547 , 553 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). See also Warrick v. State , 460 So.2d 320 , 323 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Hinshaw v. State , 398 So.2d 762 , 764 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 398 So.2d 766 (Ala. 1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n uncounseled prior conviction cannot be used to enhance punishment. . . . [I]t must be shown that the accused was represented by counsel, or waived his right to counsel, at the time of his prior conviction, or the conviction is not available for consideration under the Habitual Felony Offender Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where the rule for the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is invoked, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to allow any one of the witnesses to remain in the courtroom during the examination of the others and the exercise of this discretion is not reviewable on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henderson v. State
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.