536 So. 2d 173 - Garth v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] defendant may have a right to the appointment by the State of an expert where it is shown to be necessary for an adequate defense,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adkins v. State · 662 So. 2d 1156 - Dubose v. State

2. “"Alabama case law has consistently recognized that one man show-ups are an important part of efficient police work and generally show how well the police do their job. Conducted as soon as possible after the commission of the crime, they are a reliable, accurate, and constitutionally acceptable identification procedure. Hobbs v. State , 401 So.2d 276 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Carter v. State , 340 So.2d 94 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Robinson v. State , 55 Ala. App. 658 , 318 So.2d 354 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975); see also, Bates v. United States , 132 U.S.App.D.C. 36 , 405 F.2d 1104 (1968). An identification deprives the accused of due process of law only where the procedure used is so 'impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.' Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 , 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 , 1253 (1968). Factors which should be considered in determining whether there is a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification include 'the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.' Neil v. Biggers , 409 U.S. 188 , 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 382 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 , 411 (1972)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 624 So. 2d 1328 - Nichols v. State

3. “Absent some showing that the outcome of a new [sentencing] hearing would be materially different, the harmless error rule would apply.”

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