594 So. 2d 664 - Warner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"Failure by a prosecutor to explain every peremptory strike of black jurors is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutor's ability to rebut a prima facie case; likewise, explanation of most of the strikes on nonracial grounds does not necessarily rebut the inference created by Batson that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits `those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.'" United States v. David, 803 F.2d 1567, 1571 (11th Cir.1986).' Currin v. State], 535 So.2d [221] at 223 [(Ala.Cr.App.1988)]."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. State · 651 So. 2d 576 - Freeman v. State

2. “VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 93: She expressed reservations about the death penalty. VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 83: She expressed reservations about the death penalty. "Her husband was employed by the ABC Board. The district attorney's office had recently prosecute[d] regarding the ABC Board." VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 87: He expressed reservations about the death penalty. He also "had a paternity case with family court." Because he was 78 years old, he might be adversely affected by the length of the trial and the "gory" photographs it involved. 1 VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 1: He was a minister who indicated that he knew Warner and expressed reservations about the death penalty. One of his eyes did not seem to focus properly. VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 75: She worked in a department store where a member of the district attorney's staff had formerly worked. The staff member indicated that Number 75 was suspected of shoplifting. She was 19 years old and one of the defendants was 22. VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 31: He had been charged with possession of marijuana. He indicated that he "had heard of Mr. Shinbaum," attorney for Mr. Warner. 2 VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 113: She was a teacher and her husband was unemployed. She once had a student named Eloise Warner, the present name of defendant Warner's wife. VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 97: He was 73 years old, did not raise his hand for the administration of the oath, and had difficulty hearing "low voices." VENIREMEMBER NUMBER 27: She was 24 years old and lived in a high-crime area. Sh”

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

3. “'In reviewing the trial court's finding that the strikes were nondiscriminatory, we can only reverse if we find that the determination was clearly erroneous.' Williams [ v. State , 548 So.2d 501 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988)]. Accord, Ex parte Branch , 526 So.2d at 624 . ' "In a Batson context, the Supreme Court observed that because the trial judge's findings 'largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.' Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 , n. 21 [ 106 S.Ct. at 1724 , n. 21].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 596 So. 2d 16 - Huff v. State