545 So. 2d 151 - Brownlee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Dill v. State (1991), 666 So. 2d 91 - Brownlee v. State (1995)
1 federal appellate · 47 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Darden v. Wainwright · Bibby v. United States · Adams v. Texas
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Fifth Circuit in Martin v. Maggio, 711 F.2d 1273 (5th Cir.1983), even held that the following equivocal responses would establish the necessary predicate for disqualification: `I don't know if I would vote for the death penalty.' and `I don't know if I could do it.' These are all euphemistic expressions of `no.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`The granting or denial of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is a decision resting largely within the sound discretion of the trial court and the decision will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly shown that the trial judge abused his discretion. Snider v. State , 473 So.2d 579 , 580 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). . . . In order to establish the right to a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence, appellant must show that the evidence has been discovered since the trial, that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence, that it is material to the issue, that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching, and that the evidence is such that it will probably change the result if a new trial is granted. Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 , 504 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986) [overruled on other grounds, 562 So.2d 560 (Ala. 1989)]. . . .'"”
3 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.