55 Ala. App. 140 - Lewis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Beddow v. State, 39 Ala.App. 29 , 96 So.2d 175 , the court said: `The sequestration of witnesses under "The Rule" while rarely to be withheld upon request, is nevertheless discretionary with the trial court. And, where, for instance, a witness has remained in the courtroom in violation of the rule, the trial court's decision as to his testifying or not is not open to review. Wilson v. State, 52 Ala. 299 ; Teague v. State, 245 Ala. 339 , 16 So.2d 877 . Moreover, the efficacy of sequestration—which can only occur during the trial—is probably overrated. The law has moved from oath-taking to cross examination in its search for the truth.' "In DeFranze v. State, 46 Ala.App. 283 , 241 So.2d 125 , the court held: `Appellant claims error in the court's refusal to put the prosecutrix and two police officers under the rule. The exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is entirely a matter of discretion with the trial court, and not of right. McLean v. State, 16 Ala. 672 ; Teague v. State, 245 Ala. 339 , 16 So.2d 877 ; Beddow v. State, 39 Ala.App. 29 , 96 So.2d 175 , cert. denied, 266 Ala. 694 , 96 So.2d 178 , cert. denied, 355 U.S. 930 , 78 S.Ct. 412 , 2 L.Ed.2d 414 . This discretion is not reviewable. Riley v. State, 88 Ala 193, 7 So. 149 ; Roberts v. State, 122 Ala. 47 , 25 So. 238 ; Beddow v. State, supra. And it is within the discretion of the trial court to excuse some witnesses and not others. Brooks v. State 146 Ala. 153 , 41 So. 156 ; McDowell v. State, 238 Ala. 101 , 189 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State