Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT: Thirty-six. Are you saying, sir, even though you haven't heard the first word, that there are not facts of evidence, that there are not facts and circumstances under which you could return a verdict recommending death by electrocution? "JUROR: No. "PROSECUTION: That, again, would be regardless of the facts, whatever those facts might be, and regardless of the law, you could not under any circumstance, return a verdict of death by electrocution. Is that what you are saying, sir? "JUROR: Yes. "PROSECUTION: Thank you Mr. Jordan. We would respectfully challenge Mr. Jordan. "DEFENSE: May I ask him a question before we challenge all these jurors? *Page 340 "THE COURT: Sure. Ask him a question. "DEFENSE: Mr. Jordan, without trying to embarrass you in any way, are you saying if you are selected on a jury — you are going to take an oath to apply the law that the Court tells you is appropriate — are you telling the Court that you would ignore that oath in reaching your sentence? "THE COURT: That wasn't the question asked him. He's not going to ignore any oath. I don't think there's a juror in here that would do that. But to the specific question — and I'll let him restate it any way he wants to restate it — are there any facts and circumstances under which you, if you sat as a juror, could recommend to the Court death by electrocution? Yes or No? "JUROR: No. "THE COURT: Thank you. "PROSECUTION: We would again renew — "THE COURT: I granted it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Williams

2. “"[T]his argument has been determined adversely to the appellant in Bui v. State , 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, Ex parte Bui , 551 So.2d 1125 (Ala. 1989). This court determined that in Maynard v. Cartwright , supra, the Supreme Court did not strike down this aggravating circumstance as facially unconstitutional, but rather held that it was unconstitutionally applied in that particular case, as the jury was given no guidance as to the facts to which it should pertain. In Bui v. State , supra, this court held that, because the trial judge instructed the jury on the meaning of the words of the aggravating circumstance, and because the trial court applied the correct standard for finding the aggravating circumstance, pursuant to Ex parte [Kyzer] Kyser , 399 So.2d 330 , 334 (Ala. 1981), the sentence was not reversible."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 686 So. 2d 385 - Brown v. State