554 So. 2d 1111 - Ex Parte Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2011 · most notably Victor v. Nebraska (1991), City of Bessemer v. McClain (2006)
1 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ake v. Oklahoma · Beck v. Alabama · Trop v. Dulles · Ford v. Wainwright · Hopper v. Evans
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Dr. Embry testified . . . about the relative positions of the parties. The prosecutor and Dr. Embry even demonstrated the relative positions of the parties during the questioning. Petitioner argues that this testimony and demonstration invaded the province of the jury and were injurious to his substantial rights, citing Smith v. State , 466 So.2d 1026 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); Wilson v. State , 430 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); and Ivey v. State , 369 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App. 1979), cert. denied , 369 So.2d 1281 (Ala. 1979). Each of the cases cited by the petitioner involved a homicide by shooting, and in each case the defendant claimed accident or self-defense; the prejudicial error in each case occurred because the relative positions of the parties constituted a material inquiry of critical importance. In this case, the petitioner's defense at trial was an alibi: that he was not at the scene of the crime and that someone else must have robbed, sodomized, and murdered the victim. The testimony concerning the position of the assailant, when he stabbed the victim in the back 17 times was not of critical importance to any issue at trial. We find a compelling distinction between the facts of those cases cited by petitioner and the facts and issues of this case; therefore, we hold that the trial court did not commit error injurious to the petitioner's substantial rights by allowing Dr. Embry to testify as to the relative positions of the parties."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.