549 So. 2d 582 - Limbaugh v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “It is error for the prosecution to call an accomplice or another witness to testify for the state if he knows the witness will invoke the Fifth Amendment.” N. Chiarkas, Alabama Criminal Trial Practice 219 (1981). See Busby v. State, 412 So.2d 837 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Shockley v. State, 335 So.2d 659 (Ala.Cr.App.1975), affirmed, 335 So .2d 663 (Ala.1976); Allison v. State, 331 So.2d 748 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 331 So.2d 751 (Ala.1976).’ “Thomas v. State, 473 So.2d 627, 629 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).... “However, the law with regard to the questioning of witnesses who have invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a refusal to testify is found in the United States Supreme Court decision in Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), wherein that Honorable Court wrote as follows: “ ‘We decide today that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is applicable to the States. Pointer v. Texas, ante, 380 U.S. p. 400 [85 S.Ct. p. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d p. 923 (1965)], Orn-eases construing the clause hold that a primary interest secured by it is the right of cross-examination; an adequate opportunity for cross-examination may satisfy the clause even in the absence of physical confrontation. As the Court said in Mattox v. United States, “ ‘ “The primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits ... being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cro”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 678 So. 2d 293 - Huff v. State