Ex Parte Radford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the implied consent law and § 32-5A-194 are not 'the exclusive means for admitting intoxication test results.' " This court further recognized that " 'where the blood is seized only for medical purposes and not in furtherance of a criminal or accident investigation,' the results of a blood alcohol test are admissible under general evidentiary principles.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 701 So. 2d 47 - Carroll v. State · 711 So. 2d 1118 - Tims v. State

2. “"Although our discussion to this point is dispositive of the issues before us, it is appropriate that we address the defendant's argument on the to validity of the indictment, because that indictment may serve as the basis for trial. It is not clear from the record, however, whether the defendant has preserved this issue for appeal. Assuming arguendo that the issue was properly preserved, it is discussed below. "The defendant claims that the Department of Forensic Sciences test was performed illegally, and, therefore, that its use by the grand jury to support the indictment is in error. We disagree. In regard to federal constitutional questions, Alabama follows the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. In Aaron v. State , 271 Ala. 70 , 77 , 122 So.2d 360 (1960), we followed Costello v. United States , 350 U.S. 359 [ 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 ] (1956), which held that the Fifth Amendment does not require that the evidence put before the grand jury be completely without taint. As we had stated earlier, `If legal evidence is given [sufficient to support an indictment], . . . an indictment is not subject to be quashed because there was illegal evidence also given.' Fikes v. State , 263 Ala. 89 , 81 So.2d 303 , 310 (1955). See also Holt v. United States , 218 U.S. 245 [ 31 S.Ct. 2 , 54 L.Ed. 1021 ] (1910)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCray v. State · 728 So. 2d 657 - State v. Sealy

3. “The basis of these decisions is simply that in such a situation there has been no search or seizure by the state, and, thus, the state has not violated the defendant's rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 610 So. 2d 1206 - Russo v. State