620 So. 2d 62 - Madison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"That on April 18, 1985, the residents of 1058 Etta Avenue were Cheryl Green, 1 the woman with whom the Defendant had lived until days prior to the murder, and Kimberly Hughes, her 11-year-old daughter. "That night, Cpl. Julius Schulte, a police officer of the City of Mobile, was dispatched and went to 1058 Etta Avenue in Mobile to investigate a missing child complaint. "When Cpl. Schulte arrived, he learned that the child, Kimberly Hughes, had come home after her mother called the police but before he arrived. He also found himself in the midst of a domestic dispute between Cheryl Green and the Defendant, for April 18, 1985, was also the night that Green had thrown the Defendant's personal effects out of the house they previously shared. "The Defendant had come and gone from 1058 Eitta Avenue before Cpl. Schulte arrived, ostensibly to look for Kimberly. He came back with another woman, Mary McCord, after Cpl. Schulte was on the scene, but he left her and his .32 caliber pistol at the corner before proceeding to the house located in the middle of the block. "Once inside the 1058 Etta Avenue residence, the Defendant argued with Green, accusing her of calling the police on him. Even though he now knew the child was secure, Cpl. Schulte remained on the scene and called for a backup officer, because he had been asked to stay until Green and her child were safely away from the Defendant. "The Defendant and Green came out of the house, and both talked to Cpl. Schulte, who never exi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 718 So. 2d 90 - Madison v. State

2. ““Alabama has followed the traditional rule. Carroll v. State, 370 So.2d 749 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 870 So.2d 761 (Ala.1979); Hurst v. State, 356 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); Cordle v. State, 53 Ala.App. 148 , 298 So.2d 77 , cert. denied, 292 Ala. 717 , 298 So.2d 85 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1033 , 95 S.Ct. 516 , 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1974). However, in Nash v. Cosby, 574 So.2d 700 (Ala.1990), the Alabama Supreme Court modified the traditional rule by allowing a medical expert to give opinion testimony based in part on the opinions of others when those other opinions are found in the medical records admitted into evidence. However, as the Alabama Supreme Court noted in Ex parte Wesley[ 575 So.2d 127 (Ala.1990) ], Nash did not change ‘the traditional rule followed in Alabama that the information upon which the expert relies must be in evidence,’ 575 So.2d at 129 (footnote omitted). In Ex parte Wesley, the expert, in giving his opinion on the mental condition of the defendant in that case, based his opinion in part on police reports and medical records that were not in evidence. Following the traditional rule, as modified, the Wesley court found the expert’s testimony inadmissible. More recently, in W.S. v. T.W., 585 So.2d 26 (Ala.1991), Justice Houston, the author of the opinion in Ex parte Wesley, in an effort to clarify the rule in Alabama, stated in a concurring opinion, as follows: “ ‘It is my understanding that an expert witness may give opinion testimony based upon ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Deardorff

3. ““It is clear from the evidence in this case that [the psychologist’s] opinion was based partly on reports, records, and information obtained from third parties, which neither were in evidence at the time he testified nor were subsequently admitted. It is also apparent that [the psychologist] considered these reports, records, and information as critical in arriving at his opinion. The inescapable conclusion is that [the psychologist’s] opinion was based substantially on information not available for the jury’s consideration, and thus, in accordance with the rule of evidence discussed above, his testimony was inadmissible. See Ex parte Wesley.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lockhart v. State