606 So. 2d 193 - Slagle v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The mere fact that publicity and media attention were widespread is not sufficient to warrant a change of venue. Rather, Ex parte Grayson [, 479 So.2d 76 (Ala. 1985),] held that the appellant must show that he suffered actual prejudice or that the community was saturated with prejudicial publicity.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 913 So. 2d 1148 - Miller v. State · 771 So. 2d 1108 - Samra v. State

2. “'The standard of fairness does not require jurors to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. Murphy v. Florida , 421 U.S. 794 , 799-800 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 2035-36 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). Thus,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 661 So. 2d 789 - Beard v. State · 65 So. 3d 971 - Phillips v. State

3. “"Here, there was extensive publicity surrounding the case when Hall and Travis were initially captured and charged with the murder of Haskew. The murder occurred in December 1991. As a result of the publicity surrounding their capture and the publicity surrounding Travis's trial in March 1993, Hall's case was moved to Monroe County; it was set for trial in August 1993. In support of the motion for a second change of venue, Hall attached only one article. That article had appeared in the Monroe Journal several days before Hall's trial was scheduled to begin. As the trial court correctly noted, the correct way to determine if the pretrial publicity had saturated the community was through voir dire examination of the prospective jurors. That is one reason for the extensive voir dire examination in this case. "The thorough and sifting voir dire examination of the prospective jurors was conducted in panels of six and composes approximately 10 volumes of the 48-volume record on appeal. It is clear from a review of the voir dire that the trial court went to great lengths to ensure that Hall had a[n] impartial venire from which to draw his jury. A total of 88 prospective jurors were questioned on voir dire. Of the 88 jurors, approximately 28% of the venire, or 25 jurors, indicated that they had seen or had read the article in the Monroe Journal. The majority of those jurors that had seen the article were struck for cause. The remaining jurors indicated that anything they had seen or ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 979 So. 2d 125 - Hall v. State