581 So. 2d 1144 - McLeod v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'a clear, specific, and legitimate reason for the challenge which relates to the particular case to be tried , and which is nondiscriminatory. Batson , 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 . However, this showing need not rise to the level of a challenge for cause.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 811 So. 2d 557 - Burgess v. State · 705 So. 2d 542 - Harris v. State

2. ““McLeod asserts that he was denied due process of law by the trial court’s denial of his request for funds to obtain independent testing of the cocaine. “A ‘Motion for Independent Testing was filed by defense counsel Motley on March 27, 1989. This motion, which requested both a sample for testing and funds for such testing, was originally denied on April 14, 1989, as untimely. On April 17,1989, the trial court entered an order directing the State to furnish McLeod with a sample for independent testing to be conducted at McLeod’s expense. McLeod then filed a pro se re quest for funds for the testing. This request was denied on April 21, 1989. “A defendant charged with a drug-related offense is entitled, under Rule 18.1(c), A.R. Cr. P. Temp., and upon proper motion, to a sample of the alleged controlled substance in order that he may obtain independent testing of the substance.[ 3 ] See Moton v. State, 524 So.2d 381 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); Ware v. State, 472 So.2d 447 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). However, neither Moton nor Ware stands for the proposition that an indigent defendant is automatically entitled to funds for such testing. The defendant must demonstrate that there is a need for such testing in order to obtain funds therefor. See Tarver v. State, 500 So.2d 1232, 1245 (Ala.Cr. App.), affirmed, 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert, denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107 S.Ct. 3197 , 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987) (where defendant made no ‘showing of the need for a forensic expert’ to examine fingerprints on a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker v. State · McElroy v. State

3. “trial court requires the prosecutor to state his reasons for his peremptory strikes without first requiring the defendant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, this Court will review the reasons given by the prosecutor”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State · 611 So. 2d 466 - Jones v. State