596 So. 2d 605 - Mixon 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. “"Because Mixon's testimony was consistent with the autopsy report, which indicated that the bullet traveled on an upward path to the victim's eyelid and brain, it cannot be said that Mixon's defense was transparently frivolous. The autopsy, moreover, disclosed a bruise on the back of the victim's right hand that could not have occurred after death and that was consistent with her hand being grabbed and pressed during a struggle. The absence of fingerprints or powder residue, evidence which could have disproved the testimony were it a fabrication, is a glaring omission. Finally, all of Mixon's pre- Miranda statements to the police and to others indicated that he shot the victim but that it was an accident, which statements are consistent with the self defense defense. See Mead v. State , 472 So.2d 449 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985) (self-defense claim not transparently frivolous). "The prosecutor, moreover, repeatedly referred to Mixon's silence in closing argument as a direct attack on Mixon's exculpatory testimony at trial. Finally, the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury because it overruled Mixon's objections to the prosecution's repeated references to his silence in closing argument, which erroneous ruling in and of itself requires reversal. Craig v. State , 375 So.2d 1252 , 1256 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 375 So.2d 1257 (Ala. 1979)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Qualls v. State

2. “"1) [T]hat the evidence of [appellant]'s guilt was overwhelming and that his defense was transparently frivolous; 2) that the prosecution made only a single reference to [appellant]'s silence and this reference was neither repeated nor linked with [appellant]'s exculpatory testimony; and 3) that the trial court properly instructed the jury upon sustaining the defense's objections."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Qualls v. State