607 So. 2d 301 - Ex Parte Purser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A comment on the defendant's failure to testify is to be 'scrupulously avoided.' . . . Where there has been a direct comment on, or direct reference to, a defendant's failure to testify and the trial court does not act promptly to cure the comment, the defendant's conviction must be reversed. . . . Where the comment is an indirect, rather than a direct, comment on the defendant's failure to testify, the conviction must be reversed if there is a close identification of the defendant as the person who did not become a witness."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Loggins v. State · S.A.J. v. State

2. “Quoting from Lawrence v. State, 409 So.2d 987 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), the Court of Criminal Appeals stated:”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jefferson v. State · 695 So. 2d 209 - Click v. State

3. “"`It does not matter that during the opening statement the accused has or has not taken the stand, his constitutional right to remain silent may still be violated. The argument that no harm can be ascertained from remarks indifferent to that right until closing arguments, after the accused has elected not to testify is ill conceived and ill thought out. Certainly, we would be remiss in our duty if we failed to recognize the danger of the district attorney, early in the proceedings, directly or indirectly focusing the jury's attention on what the accused will or will not testify to, or on what he previously has or has not admitted. In many instances, if this tactic were allowed, the prejudice to the accused would be even greater than if the comment were made after all the testimony had been taken. If permitted, the jury would be on their constant guard, anticipating the accused's "chance to tell his story." This form of prejudice to an accused's right to receive a fair trial will not be sanctioned or tolerated by this court. An accused's right to remain silent is inviolable at every stage in the proceedings and must be afforded due protection.' " Collins v. State , 385 So.2d 993 , 1001 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), reversed on other grounds, 385 So.2d 1005 (Ala. 1980)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 723 So. 2d 810 - Baxter v. State · 824 So. 2d 1 - Thomas v. State