620 So. 2d 82 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2014
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. · Georgia v. McCollum
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" 'Extremely significant in this case, and at the heart of the reason this case must be reversed, is the trial court's accepting at face value the State's ostensibly facially neutral explanations for the use of its peremptory challenges, which were, with regard to three of the black veniremembers who were struck, based exclusively on information contained in the document to which only the state had access. If there was in this case voir dire testimony substantiating the State's explanations for the use of its peremptory challenges, e.g., if the State had engaged the veniremembers in voir dire questions concerning the veniremembers' misdemeanor criminal histories and/or their driving records, or if the trial court had ordered the State to produce the document that it used in exercising its peremptory challenges, or if the trial court had examined the document in camera, we might be in a position to affirm, rather that being compelled, as we are, to reverse and remand.' " Thomas , 601 So.2d at 58-9 . (See King v. State , 612 So.2d 1333 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), holding that no violation of Thomas occurred because the court, when ruling on the Batson motion, reviewed the documents that the state relied upon in striking the prospective juror.) In Jones v. State , 611 So.2d 466 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this court recently distinguished Walker and upheld the prosecutor's reason for striking a prospective juror because 'the sheriff's department had "drug problems" with that person.' 611 So.2d ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Thomas , 601 So.2d at 58-9 . (See King v. State , 612 So.2d 1333 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), holding that no violation of Thomas occurred because the court, when ruling on the Batson motion, reviewed the documents that the state relied upon in striking the prospective juror.) In Jones v. State , 611 So.2d 466 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this court recently distinguished Walker and upheld the prosecutor's reason for striking a prospective juror because 'the sheriff's department had”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The court's determination regarding voluntariness will stand up on appeal unless 'it appears contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is manifestly wrong.' " Williams v. State , 620 So.2d 82 , 86 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) quoting Bush v. State , 523 So.2d 538 , 554 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.