593 So. 2d 167 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" ' "Courts have been perplexed in laying down satisfactory rules where illegal evidence, calculated to prejudice the defendant, has been received, and subsequently excluded; but it may be regarded as settled, in this state, that the admission of illegal evidence, which is subsequently excluded, and the jury instructed to disregard such evidence, cures the error and vitiates the exception reserved to its admission." Smith v. State , 107 Ala. 139 , 144 , 18 So. 306 , 308 (1895). The instructions to the jury to disregard such evidence should be "direct, specific, and unequivocal." Pelham v. State , 23 Ala. App. 359 , 361 , 125 So. 688 , 690 (1930). "Where evidence has been erroneously admitted, a clear instruction to the jury that it is not to be considered will ordinarily be allowed to have the effect of curing the error, though this Court has always regarded the practice with cautious disapproval." Maryland Casualty Co. v. McCallum , 200 Ala. 154 , 156 , 75 So. 902 , 904 (1917)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. West v. State · 622 So. 2d 441 - Page v. State

2. “The statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified and the trial court will not be put in error on grounds not assigned at trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 654 So. 2d 95 - McKinney v. State · 710 So. 2d 1362 - May v. State

3. “"`Neither Batson nor [ Ex parte ] Branch [, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987),] mandates that a defendant be given the opportunity to cross-examine jurors or other witnesses in order to establish that the State's reasons are based on sham or pretext.... Branch does not encompass the cross-examination of jurors or allow a defendant to go behind a prosecutor's information to determine if such information was true.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 639 So. 2d 515 - Adkins v. State