601 So. 2d 1062 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 65 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'When a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case is based on the ground that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, one issue is whether the movant has standing to assert the claim and to seek the remedy of exclusion. See LaFave, 4 Search and Seizure § 11.3 (2d ed. 1987). The rights afforded protection by the Fourth Amendment are personal rights. See Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 , 389 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1967). To show that a party has standing to object to a search, the party must have a possessory interest in the premises searched. Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128 [132], 99 S.Ct. 421 , 425 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). . . . The " 'capacity to claim the protection of the [Fourth] Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.' " Mancusi v. DeForte , 392 U.S. 364 , 368 , 88 S.Ct. 2120 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1967), quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 352 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). "A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex parte State · Kevin Sharp Enterprises, Inc. v. State ex rel. Tyson

2. “'Whatever is in evidence is considered subject to legitimate comment by counsel.' Bankhead v. State , 585 So.2d 97 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), aff'd, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala. 1991). See also Ward v. State , 440 So.2d 1227 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). 'The prosecutor has the right to present his impressions from the evidence. He may argue every matter of legitimate inference and may examine, collate, sift, and treat the evidence in his own way.' . . . Donahoo v. State , 505 So.2d 1067 , 1072 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Powell v. State · 680 So. 2d 879 - Slaton v. State

3. “'When the door is opened by defense counsel's argument, it swings wide, and a number of areas barred to prosecutorial comment will suddenly be subject to reply.' Davis v. State , 494 So.2d 851 , 855 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). This court, in Stephens v. State , 580 So.2d 11 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd , 580 So.2d 26 (Ala.), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 859 , 112 S.Ct. 176 , 116 L.Ed.2d 138 (1991), stated the following with regard to a prosecutor's statements in arguments: " ' ". . . '[I]t must be examined in its context and in light of what had transpired, *Page 1209 that is, in light of preceding argument of defense counsel, to which the prosecutor's argument was an answer.' Washington v. State , 259 Ala. 104 , 65 So.2d 704 (1953); Gibson v. State , 347 So.2d 576 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977); Rutledge v. State , 482 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The rule in Alabama is that 'remarks or comments of the prosecuting attorney, including those which might otherwise be improper, are not grounds for reversal when they are invited, provoked, or occasioned by accused's counsel and are in reply to or retaliation for his acts and statements.' Shewbart v. State , 33 Ala. App. 195 , 32 So.2d 241 , cert. denied , 249 Ala. 572 , 32 So.2d 244 (1947); Camper v. State , 384 So.2d 637 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980); Wilder v. State , 401 So.2d 167 (Ala. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981); Miller v. State , 431 So.2d 586 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Rutledge , supra.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 662 So. 2d 1201 - Langham v. State · 619 So. 2d 222 - Chatom v. State