540 So. 2d 805 - Ham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2007
11 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 Wrenn v. McFadden · Cherek v. United States · Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Lawson v. Credithrift of America · Griffin v. Hilke
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We know of no authority and have been cited to none which would have authorized or required the trial judge to order the witness to talk to defense counsel. This is not a situation where a material witness was made unavailable through prosecutorial misconduct. See Self v. State , 420 So.2d 798 (Ala. 1982). 'Any defendant has the right to attempt to question any witness prior to trial [if] he so desires in the absence of intimidating influence. However, by the same token, any witness has an attending right to refuse to be so interviewed.' Hill v. State , 366 So.2d 296 , 312 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), affirmed, 366 So.2d 318 (Ala. 1979); Veith v. State , 48 Ala. App. 688 , 696 , 267 So.2d 480 (1972). Clearly, '[a] witness may refuse to be interviewed or dictate the circumstances under which he will submit to an interview.' United States v. Dryden , 423 F.2d 1175 , 1177 , n. 6 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1869 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barger v. State“Under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence is admissible that otherwise would be excludable if it inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means had the illegal conduct not occurred.”
1 later decision 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.