549 So. 2d 139 - Nodd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[W]here the State's case consists primarily of police testimony and that testimony is crucial in establishing the State's case, the defense has a right to inquire, either through counsel or the trial judge, whether any member of the jury venire might be more, or less, inclined to credit the testimony of a police officer simply because of his or her official status. The trial judge's refusal of such requested inquiry will constitute an abuse of discretion when the issue has not been adequately covered in other questions on voir dire or in the judge's charge to the jury."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Webb v. State · 651 So. 2d 599 - DeBruce v. State

2. “"The peremptory challenge has been recognized as `essential to the fairness of trial by jury,' Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 376 , 13 S.Ct. 136, 138 , 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892), and `one of the most important of the rights secured to the accused.' Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 408 , 14 S.Ct. 410, 414 , 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). See also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 120-22 , 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1736 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (Burger, C.J., dissenting); Batson, 476 U.S. at 105-07 , 106 S.Ct. at 1728 (Marshall, J., concurring). Even the majority in Batson recognized that `the peremptory challenge occupies an important position in our trial procedures.' Batson, 476 U.S. at 98-99 , 106 S.Ct. at 1724 . See also Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219 , 85 S.Ct. 824, 835 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965); Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 , 106 S.Ct. 1683 , 90 L.Ed.2d 27 (1986) (`[A] capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias.'). Inadequate voir dire diminishes the statutory right of peremptory challenge, Ala.Code 1975, XX-XX-XXX, and may even render the right totally arbitrary and meaningless. "` Voir dire plays a critical function in assuring the criminal defendant that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury will be honored. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 819 - Travis v. State

3. “"In finding in this case that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to inquire or allow any inquiry on this matter, we do not retreat from our holdings in other cases where we found no abuse of discretion in refusing to make this or similar inquiries. Roberson v. State, 384 So.2d 864, 868 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 384 So.2d 868 (Ala.1980) (child); Radford v. State, 348 So.2d 880, 884-85 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) (relatives); Powell v. State, 53 Ala.App. 30, 35-36 , 297 So.2d 163 (1974) (police officer). Each instance of the alleged abuse of discretion must be judged upon its own particular merits in the context of the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case. On appeal, this Court will indulge every presumption that the trial court ruled correctly, Ballard v. State, 236 Ala. 541, 542 , 184 So. 260 (1938), and will reverse only where there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Pace v. State, 284 Ala. 585, 586 , 226 So.2d 645 (1969)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 819 - Travis v. State