640 So. 2d 22 - Kennedy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 791 So. 2d 979 - Jackson v. State (2000), Maples v. State (1999)
64 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · North Carolina v. Alford · Bumper v. North Carolina · Florida v. Jimeno · Wrenn v. McFadden
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`In reviewing the correctness of the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this Court makes all the reasonable inferences and credibility choices supportive of the decision of the trial court.'”
24 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Urioso v. State · WDH v. State“"Rule 13.3(a) is `patterned after Rule 8 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.' H. Maddox, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure 405 (1990). In deciding consolidation claims under Rule 13.3, A.R.Crim.P., this Court has followed the case law interpreting Federal Rule 8. See, e.g., Hinton v. State , 548 So.2d 547 , 554 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, Ex parte Hinton , 548 So.2d 562 , 566 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989); Langham v. State , 494 So.2d 910 , 915 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). One noted commentator on the federal rules has observed: "`It is the "same or similar character" aspect of Rule 8(a) which has provoked the greatest controversy and proved the most difficult to interpret. . . . The arguments against this form of joinder are stronger than those against the other forms of joinder under Rule 8(a). When the government joins offenses based on the same acts or trans-actions or connected acts or transactions, the prosecution is spared the burden of proving the same set of facts more than once. There is no comparable saving of trial time when offenses that are related only by being of the same type are joined, since the offenses are usually proven by different bodies of evidence. Thus, when totally unrelated, similar offenses are joined, defendant faces a "considerable" risk of prejudice.' "8 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 8.05[1] at 8-17 and ¶ 8.05[4] at 8-21 to 8-22 (2d ed. 1991) (footnotes omitted). "As we observed in Jenkins”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(2) Are based on the same conduct or are otherwise connected in their commission; or "(3) Are alleged to have been part of a common scheme or plan."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.