619 So. 2d 222 - Chatom 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. “'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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 662 So. 2d 1201 - Langham v. State

2. “'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:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 662 So. 2d 1201 - Langham v. State