552 So. 2d 887 - Donahoo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The term suppression `means non-disclosure of evidence that the prosecutor, and not the defense attorney, knew to be in existence.' Ogden v. Wolff , 522 F.2d 816 , 820 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied , 427 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 3198 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1203 (1976). `The concept of "suppression" implies that the Government has information in its possession of which the defendant lacks knowledge and which the defendant would benefit from knowing.' United States v. Natale , 526 F.2d 1160 , 1170 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied , 425 U.S. 950 , 96 S.Ct. 1724 , 48 L.Ed.2d 193 (1976)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Minor v. State · Moody v. State

2. “"Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, a trial court's ruling on a motion for change of venue will not be overturned. Ex parte Magwood, 426 So.2d 929, 931 (Ala.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1355 (1983). In order to grant a motion for change of venue, the defendant must prove that there existed actual prejudice against the defendant or that the community was saturated with prejudicial publicity. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Franklin v. State, 424 So.2d 1353 (Ala. Crim.App.1982). Newspaper articles or widespread publicity, without more, are insufficient to grant a motion for change of venue. Anderson v. State, 362 So.2d 1296, 1298 (Ala.Crim.App.1978). As the Supreme Court explained in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642-43 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961): "`To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court....' "The standard of fairness does not require jurors to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 , 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2035-2036 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). Thus, `[t]he proper manner for ascertaining whether adverse publici”

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

3. “Because the element of knowledge is seldom susceptible to direct proof, it may be proved by evidence of acts or conduct of the accused from which it may fairly be inferred that he knew of the existence of the narcotics at the place where they were found.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 715 So. 2d 895 - Lockhart v. State