Ex Parte Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2006
10 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 496 So. 2d 100 - Hamilton v. State · 501 So. 2d 568 - Johnson v. State · Harris v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) To disclose the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant before or after arrest to any law enforcement officer, official, or employee which the state intends to offer in evidence at the trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The rule [now Rule 16.1, Ala. R.Crim. P.] explicitly mandates that such statements be disclosed to the defendant upon his motion. As stated by our Court of Criminal Appeals, ‘Rule 18.1(a) [now Rule 16.1] is plain and unambiguous. These discovery provisions are the result of many years of painstaking drafting, revision, and redrafting by respected and learned jurists, lawyers, and academicians.... As the advisory committee noted in the comments to the 1983 draft, reciprocal discovery is not only more fair to the accused, but is also of more importance to the state since it serves to expedite those cases which are more properly resolved through negotiated pleas.’ “Hamilton v. State, 496 So.2d 100, 106 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sullivan v. State““Therefore, the [rule requiring disclosure] applies and the district attorney was bound by it. ‘These rules are the law. Therefore, it is the duty of the courts to enforce them and the duty of the bar to conform to them.’ Johnson v. State, 501 So.2d 568, 571 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sullivan 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.