Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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. “'[O]n appeal, the party claiming that a trial judge has abused his discretion in such aspect bears the burden of persuasion.' Connell v. State , 294 Ala. 477 , 481 , 318 So.2d 710 , 714 (1974).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. MT v. State · Adams v. State

2. ““ ‘The trial judge’s determination in each case that peremptory challenges were not racially motivated is, ordinarily, entitled to considerable deference.’ Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), cert. denied, [—] U.S. [—], 113 S.Ct. 2970 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 669 ] (1993). ‘It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is “clearly erroneous.” Scales v. State, 539 So.2d 1074 (Ala.1988).’ Ex parts Bankhead, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993). Accord Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d [609] at 625-26 [ (Ala.1987) ].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knight v. State · Bennett v. State

3. “"The prosecutor's comment was a reasonable inference from the evidence. 'The test of a legitimate argument is that whatever is based on facts in evidence is within the scope of proper comment in argument to the jury.' Ward v. State , 440 So.2d 1227 , 1230 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). 'Counsel for both the State and [the] defendant are allowed wide latitude in drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence in their closing arguments. A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present [her] impression from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.' Manigan v. State , 402 So.2d 1063 , 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 402 So.2d 1072 (Ala. 1981). 'A prosecutor may express her opinion concerning reasonable inferences, deductions, and conclusions to be drawn from the facts in evidence, as long as she *Page 1276 does not express an opinion as to the defendant's guilt. Sams v. State , 506 So.2d 1027 , 1029 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).' Cross v. State , 536 So.2d 155 , 160 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988)."”

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