Reed v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The test for determining whether juror misconduct is prejudicial to the defendant and, thus, warrants a new trial is whether the misconduct might have unlawfully influenced the verdict rendered. Ex parte Troha , 462 So.2d 953 , 954 (Ala. 1984); Roan [v. State ] 225 Ala. 428 , 435 , 143 So. 454 , 460 (1932); Leith [v. State ] 206 Ala. 439 , 90 So. 687 , 690 (1921). Once the trial court investigates the misconduct and finds, based on competent evidence, the alleged prejudice to be lacking, this Court will not reverse. See Bascom v. State , 344 So.2d 218 , 222 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977)."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 904 So. 2d 331 - Pace v. State · 574 So. 2d 1018 - Baker v. State

2. “"A juror's conducting an experiment outside the presence of the court constitutes juror misconduct because it inherently results in the introduction of facts, whether consistent or inconsistent with the evidence already before the jury, that have not been subject to the rules of evidence or to cross-examination by either party. See Ex parte Lasley , 505 So.2d 1263 , 1264 (Ala. 1987). However, not every instance of juror misconduct warrants a new trial. Id. Each case involving juror misconduct must be judged by its own peculiar facts, and the conduct, when found to be prejudicial , will require a reversal. Bell v. State , 227 Ala. 254 , 256 , 149 So. 687 , 689 (1933). "The test for determining whether juror misconduct is prejudicial to the defendant and, thus, warrants a new trial is whether the misconduct might have unlawfully influenced the verdict rendered. Ex parte Troha , 462 So.2d 953 , 954 (Ala. 1984); Roan [ v. State ] 225 Ala. 428 , 435 , 143 So. 454 , 460 (1932); Leith [ v. State ] 206 Ala. 439 , 443 , 90 So. 687 , 690 (1921). Once the trial court investigates the misconduct and finds, based on competent evidence, the alleged prejudice to be lacking, this Court will not reverse. See Bascom v. State , 344 So.2d 218 , 222 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State · 710 So. 2d 511 - Knight v. State

3. “"We begin by noting that no single fact or circumstance will determine whether the verdict rendered in a given case might have been unlawfully influenced by a juror's home experiment. Rather, it is a case's own peculiar set of circumstances that will decide the issue. In this case, it is undisputed that the juror told none of the other members of the jury of her experiment until after the verdict had been reached. While the question of whether she might have been unlawfully influenced by the experiment still remains, the juror testified at the post-trial hearing on the defendant's motion for a new trial that her vote had not been affected by the experiment. We cannot agree with the defendant that the verdict rendered might have been unlawfully influenced, where the results of the home experiment were known only to the one juror who conducted the experiment and that juror remained unaffected by the experiment. The defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on this basis and, thus, he is not entitled to a reversal."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State of Alabama. · Creque v. State