621 So. 2d 309 - Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Moreover, " ' "To justify a challenge for cause, there must be a proper statutory ground or ' "some matter which imports absolute bias or favor, and leaves nothing to the discretion of the trial court.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Russell v. State

2. “"It is improper for a trial judge to disclose to the jury that he made a preliminary determination that a confession was voluntary and, therefore, admissible. Clifton v. United States, 371 F.2d 354 (D.C.Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 995 , 87 S.Ct. 1312 , 18 L.Ed.2d 341 (1967); United States v. Inman, 352 F.2d 954 (4th Cir.1965). In the case at hand, however, the trial judge made it clear to the jury that they were to ultimately determine whether the confession was voluntary. We agree, therefore, with the Court of Criminal Appeals that there was no prejudicial error, since the comments of the trial judge `did not imply that the jury should accept and believe appellant's confession based on the trial court's ruling that the statement was voluntary.' ". . . . "Correctly stated, whether a confession was voluntary rests initially with the trial court; once the trial court makes the preliminary determination that the confession was voluntary, it then becomes admissible into evidence. Thereafter, the jury makes a determination of voluntariness as affecting the weight and credibility to be given the confession. Lewis v. State, 295 Ala. 350 , 329 So.2d 599 (1976)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State · 621 So. 2d 353 - Aultman v. State

3. “"In Clark v. State , 621 So.2d 309 , 314 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this Court stated: "`While some of the reasons given by the prosecutor were clearly suspect, e.g., living in a high crime area, and subjective, e.g., making a poor impression during voir dire and failure to communicate, see Ex parte Bird , supra, the prosecutor also gave valid reasons for his strikes of the potential jurors for whom he had given the suspect or subjective reasons. See Davis v. State , 555 So.2d 309 , 314 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) (wherein the prosecutor gave a highly suspect reason, specifically age, for his strike [and] this court held that, "[w]e do not need to address whether this strike was a sham, however, since the prosecutor stated an additional ground for striking this venireman," which was held to be sufficiently race-neutral).'"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 896 So. 2d 584 - Clark v. State · 798 So. 2d 693 - McElemore v. State