Penn v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
August 1998
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Britt v. North Carolina · 516 So. 2d 726 - Jackson v. State · Burroughs v. Georgia · 404 So. 2d 89 - Carpenter 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The appellant argues that, as an indigent, he was entitled to the `basic tools of a defense or an appeal,' under the authority of Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 , 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971). According to the appellant, the transcript's value to his defenses was `great' because the transcript was `essential for discovery as well as impeachment purposes. "This precise issue, however, has been previously decided adversely to the appellant. In Mardis v. State, 423 So.2d 331 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), this court concluded that the trial court's denial of certain pretrial motions was proper, based upon the following reasoning: "`The defendant claims that the trial court erroneously denied portions of his "motion for discovery" inquiring about the criminal records of, or the immunity promised to, any of the State's witnesses. He also contends that the court erred by not granting his pretrial "petition for transcript for indigent defendant," in which he sought a copy of the trial transcript of his co-defendant James Meeks. "`Both requests were properly denied. The "petition for transcript for indigent defendant" was a discovery device, as indicated by counsel's statement in brief: "`At the trial of James Meeks, the State called witnesses to the stand against Mr. Meeks which were in fact the same witnesses called against appellant at his trial. Appellant requested a transcript of said proceedings in order to assist counsel for appellant in preparation of the case against him”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.