555 So. 2d 780 - Ex Parte Siebert’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Danial Siebert v. Alabama (1990), 725 So. 2d 1063 - Price v. State. (1998)
2 federal appellate · 91 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · California v. Prysock · Fletcher v. State · Wallace v. State
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]hotographic evidence, if relevant, is admissible even if it has a tendency to inflame the minds of the jurors.”
35 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Boyle v. State · Baker v. State“"In essence, Siebert's argument appears to be that under § 13A-5-49 (2), only convictions obtained prior to the commission of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced are admissible. "This argument directly contradicts the relevant Alabama statute. Code 1975, § 13A-5-39 (6), provides: "`PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED AND PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. As used in sections 13A-5-49 (2) [aggravating circumstances] and 13A-5-51 (1) [mitigating circumstances], these terms refer to events occurring before the date of the sentence hearing.' "The Talladega County conviction was obtained before the sentencing hearing was held in this case. Therefore, according to the plain language of the statute, the minute entry was properly admitted into evidence, and Siebert's allegation of error must fail."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'A confession can never be received in evidence where the prisoner has been influenced by any threat or promise.' " Holt v. State , 372 So.2d 370 , 372 (Ala. 1978) (quoting Bram v. United States , 168 U.S. 532 , 542 , 18 S.Ct. 183 , 187 , 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897)). However, in determining whether a confession is voluntary, the " 'true test is whether, under all the surrounding circumstances, a confession has been induced by a threat or a promise, express or implied, operating to produce in the mind of the prisoner apprehension of harm or hope of favor.' Wallace v. State , 290 Ala. 201 , 275 So.2d 634 , 636 (1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morrison v. State
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.