55 Ala. App. 514 - Lowery v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We further hold that where Act No. 77, supra, is used to prove a material element in a criminal prosecution, there may arise a strong probability that the defendant may be denied his right to be confronted by witnesses and to cross examine them pursuant to Article 1, § 6, Constitution of Alabama 1901 and Amendment Six and Fourteen of the United States Constitution." 317 So.2d at 369, 370.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mayben v. State · 407 So. 2d 854 - Whetstone v. State

2. “"[Documents admissible under various statutes cannot be used] where the end result would be proof of [a] key element *Page 57 of the murder charge solely on the basis of certified copies of the documents, but without bringing forth available witnesses to confront the defendant or offer him an opportunity to cross examine them concerning their conclusions. "It could be argued that a certified copy of a death certificate is admissible as presumptive proof of the cause of death, as provided for in [§ 12-21-101 ], and that the defendant may call expert witnesses to rebut such presumption. In a civil case, such an interpretation would not be unreasonable. In a criminal case, we think such a use of a presumption would be unconstitutional. "The burden of proof in all criminal prosecutions rests upon the State, with the presumption of innocence attending the defendant until the burden of proof has been met. To allow the State to simply introduce a certified copy of a death certificate and thus shift the burden to the defendant to disprove the facts set out therein would be an unconstitutional burden of such weight as to deprive a defendant of a fair trial and due process of law. "By use of certified copies of business documents and official records under special statutes providing for such, it could be conceivable that the State could prove some offenses without the necessity of calling any witnesses at all, except for the guarantees of our state and federal constitutions. The right ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barnes v. State · 580 So. 2d 53 - Grantham v. State

3. “"Hearsay in documents does not become admissible by merely having a custodian certify a copy to be the same as the original document. . . ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 407 So. 2d 854 - Whetstone v. State · 333 So. 2d 865 - McGhee v. State