56 Ala. App. 212 - Beecher v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1994
10 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 243
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Irvin v. Dowd · Swain v. State of Alabama
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““MR. CLEMON: Your Honor, at this time we move to have this Court to declare this trial a mistrial because of the District Attorney’s comment on the Defendant’s presence to take the stand — on the Defendant’s failure to take the stand. We objected to it heretofore and the objection was overruled and we took exception, but we did want to make it clear for the record that formally we are requesting this Court to declare a mistrial because of the prejudicial comment on the failure of the Defendant to take the witness stand, a right guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. “THE COURT: I don’t construe the statement as a comment on the failure to take- the stand. As I understood it, it was that the — -the statement was undenied, and that has been held to be not a comment on the statement. “MR. CLEMON: Your Honor, may we just have the Court Reporter to read back the statement? “THE COURT: Yes. “MR. CLEMON: As I recall it, the statement was that no one took the stand. “THE COURT: All right. Let’s— “MR. PETTUS: If the Court please, I would like to say this— “THE COURT: Well,— “MR. PETTUS : When they made the objection, they did not state any words or language used. “MR. CLEMON: At this point the Judge said ‘Overruled’, and we said ‘Except.’ We didn’t have an opportunity to state any words or language used. “THE COURT: Well, I don’t believe that you were denied an opportunity. I didn’t intend to, but you might have thought so and I am not going to— “MR. BLACK: It’s been uph”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beecher v. State““We do not consider the evidence in this case to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in view of the presence of reasonable basis for the question of discrimination being presented in this. case, we strongly recommend to the Jury Commission of Lawrence County that every effort be promptly made to fill the jury roll with the names of all citizens of the county found to be qualified under Title 30, Sec. 21, Code of Alabama so that no colorable foundation for challenge upon grounds of discrimination may ever again be available. Such is the duty imposed by the law of the state upon the Jury Commission in every county.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beecher 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.