Mims v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" 'Once the defendant has laid a proper predicate for the impeachment of a witness who testified before the grand jury, the trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection . . . to determine (1) whether the statement made by the witness before the grand jury "differed in any respects from statements made to the jury during trial," . . . and (2) whether the grand jury testimony requested by the defendant "was of such a nature that without it the defendant's trial would be fundamentally unfair." . . . This procedure will best preserve and protect the legislative determination that "it is essential to the fair and impartial administration of justice that all grand jury proceedings be secret and that the secrecy of such proceedings remain inviolate." Alabama Code 1975, Sections 12-16-214 through 226.' " Millican v. State , 423 So.2d 268 , 270-71 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 706 So. 2d 787 - Mitchell v. State

2. “"`Before the admission of demonstrative evidence at a trial, such evidence must be identified. The testimony can be visual, that is, by testimony at the trial that the object displayed is the one related to the case. For admission, it suffices if the evidence establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is connected with the case. A preponderance of the evidence is sufficient.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 745 So. 2d 922 - Smith v. State

3. “"Although the general rule is that items must be properly identified and shown to be connected with the crime, this is not an absolute rule. Where there is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable inference that items were used by the accused in the commission of the crime charged, those items are admissible. 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law ง 712 (1961)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 672 So. 2d 1319 - Dobyne v. State