641 So. 2d 1289 - Goodwin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]bjections must be stated with `sufficient particularity' to apprise the trial court of `basis for the objection' so as to permit the trial court to make an informed decision `on the particular legal issue involved.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniels v. State · 712 So. 2d 754 - RKD v. State

2. “[t]he statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified, and the trial court will not be put in error on grounds not assigned at trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniels v. State · 712 So. 2d 754 - RKD v. State

3. ““Our research reveals no Alabama cases addressing the issue of whether inconsistent verdicts between codefendants who are tried together requires reversal. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, ruling in an Alabama case, held, With respect to any possible inconsistency in the jury’s verdict, the law is clear: “[ijnconsistency in a verdict ... is not a sufficient reason to set it aside,” ’ provided there is ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusions. United States v. Alexander, 850 F.2d 1500, 1505-06 (11th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 852 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 905 , 106 S.Ct. 274 , 88 L.Ed.2d 235 (1985), 482 U.S. 908 , 107 S.Ct. 2489 , 96 L.Ed.2d 380 (1987)). See also, United States v. Dempewolf, 817 F.2d 1318, 1323 (8th Cir.1987) (inconsistent jury verdicts as to codefendants are not grounds for reversal). ‘Juries are free to return inconsistent verdicts, for whatever reason, provided their convictions are supported by adequate evidence.’ United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1176 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Merida, 765 F.2d 1205, 1220 (5th Cir.1985).””

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