61 So. 3d 986 - Ex Parte Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The State contends ... that Harrison failed to explain in his Rule 32[, Ala. R.Crim. P.,] petition why he could not have reasonably discovered the alleged juror misconduct in time to assert that claim in his motion for a new trial or on appeal. “As we indicated in [Ex parte ] Burgess, [ 21 So.3d 746 (Ala.2008),] however, the very nature of juror misconduct is such that a defendant typically will not be aware that there is any misconduct to be discovered. Placing a requirement on a defendant to uncover any and all possible juror misconduct without reason to know what type of misconduct the defendant might be looking for or, in fact, whether any misconduct occurred, would require criminal defendants to embark on a broad-ranging fishing expedition at the conclusion of every criminal trial or waive the right to complain of any juror misconduct the defendant might ultimately discover. Moreover, when it comes to voir dire examination of jurors, the defendant has every right to expect' that jurors will provide truthful and accurate responses.... As in Burgess, there is no evidence in the record indicating that Harrison should have been aware before he filed his motion for a new trial or his direct appeal that some jurors had provided untruthful or inaccurate answers during voir dire examination.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Frank Gillis, M.D. v. Joey Frazier, as of the Estate of Florine Bryant

2. ““Burgess reasonably expected that potential jurors answered accurately the questions posed to them during the voir dire examination. It is unreasonable to hold that a defendant must uncover any and all juror misconduct in the form of inaccurate responses to voir dire examination in time to raise such claims in a motion for a new trial or on appeal. Requiring a defendant to raise such claims of juror misconduct during the interval between the voir dire examination and the filing of posttrial motions places an impracticable burden on defendants.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 So. 3d 973 - Ex Parte Hodges, 1100112 (Ala. 8-26-2011)