53 Ala. App. 43 - Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . The law is clear that proof of intoxication amounting to mania or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words renders a confession so made by him inadmissible, but a lesser state of intoxication will not render the confession inadmissible. The voluntariness of an alleged confession is a question of law for the court and should be decided by the trial court upon preliminary proof, showing the circumstances surrounding the alleged confession, taken outside the hearing of the jury, and such finding will not be disturbed unless it appears contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is manifestly wrong. Stewart v. State , 49 Ala. App. 681 , 275 So.2d 360 ."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sales v. State · 56 Ala. App. 359 - Patterson v. State

2. ““In the Penn case the United States District Court held that the jury roll and the jury box of Montgomery County did not meet the constitutional tests in the selection of juries in this County. Specifically the court found that the jury selection system of Montgomery County was discriminatory on the basis of race and sex and granted mandatory relief on the 6th day of June, 1973, five days before appellant was put to trial in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. Penn et al. v. Eubanks et al., D.C., 360 F.Supp. 699 . “In granting the relief sought in Penn, supra, the Court said: “ ‘The relief that must be afforded in this case will involve both a prohibitory and a mandatory injunction. This means that there must be a cessation of the use of the Montgomery County jury roll and a complete emptying of the jury box as it now exists within not more than four (4) months from this date. The defendants will be allowed until that time to compile a jury roll and refill the jury box for Montgomery County in strict accordance with the law of Alabama and the constitutional principles herein set forth. * * *’ “A copy of the Writ of Injunction was presented to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County at the time appellant’s case was called for trial. In the light of Penn, supra, appellant insisted on his motion to quash, the indictment and his motion to quash the venire. Appellant also moved for a continuance. The trial court denied all motions, and put appellant to trial. “We do not constru”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. State · 53 Ala. App. 647 - Lipscromb v. State

3. ““1. That defendant Levon King is a member of the Negro race. 2. 83,055 people in Montgomery County, Alabama, are between the ages of twenty-one years and sixty-five years. 3. That the jury roll of Montgomery County, Alabama, contains the names of 7,400 persons and that 6,468 of these are on jury cards placed in the jury box of Montgomery County, Alabama. 4. That 12% of the persons on the jury roll are Negro and that 30.7% of the people in Montgomery County, Alabama, eligible by age for jury service, are Negro, according to Judge Frank Johnsons’ decree.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. State