508 So. 2d 289 - Richardson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'While the trial judge is vested with large discretion in the conduct of the trial and may admonish the jury as to the desirability and importance in agreeing on a verdict, he may also urge jurors to make every effort consistent with their consciences to reach such verdict. He may request jurors to lay aside mere pride of judgment and listen to what the other jurors believe from the evidence. The judge may ask the jurors to reason together in a spirit of fairness and candor and, if possible, harmonize them. However, it is not proper to give an instruction censoring jurors for not agreeing with the majority.' " Richardson v. State , 508 So.2d 289 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), quoting Showers v. State , 407 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), reversed on other grounds, 407 So.2d 169 (Ala. 1981). " ' "It is quite clear that under Alabama law a trial judge may urge a jury to resume deliberations and cultivate a spirit of harmony so as to reach a verdict, as long as the court does not suggest which way the verdict should be returned and no duress or coercion is used.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 516 So. 2d 907 - McGilberry v. State

2. “" ' "It is quite clear that under Alabama law a trial judge may urge a jury to resume deliberations and cultivate a spirit of harmony so as to reach a verdict, as long as the court does not suggest which way the verdict should be returned and no duress or coercion is used." Showers v. State , 407 So.2d 169 , 171 (Ala. 1981).' " Harris v. State , [Ms. 6 Div. 176 , April 28, 1987] (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), quoting Channell v. State , 477 So.2d 522 , 531 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 516 So. 2d 907 - McGilberry v. State

3. “A totality of the circumstances or a case-by-case approach thus best serves the underlying purpose here: to protect the jury deliberation process from undue influence or coercion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Wis. 2d 68 - State v. McMahon