Carroll v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Pre-trial identifications are to be set aside on grounds of prejudice only if the pre-trial identification procedure is so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Scott v. State , 479 So.2d 1343 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). The totality of the circumstances surrounding the out-of-court identification need be analyzed only when the pretrial procedures used were unnecessarily or impermissibly suggestive. Coleman v. State , 487 So.2d 1380 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). The fact that witnesses are shown photographs does not establish suggestiveness. Matthews v. State , 401 So.2d 241 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1981).' Ex parte Stout , 547 So.2d 901 , 904 (Ala. 1989).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 705 So. 2d 542 - Harris v. State

2. “Further, by directing the prosecution to proceed after he had heard the state's explanation, the court implicitly overruled the appellant's Batson [v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)] motion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 987 So. 2d 1184 - Skelton v. CITY OF MOODY

3. “A mere suspicion that a veniremember is related to a former defendant is not a race-neutral reason to deny that person the opportunity to serve on a jury. Floyd v. State , 539 So.2d 357 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987).”

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