649 So. 2d 1304 - Kidd v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2014
11 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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Batson v. Kentucky · Doyle v. Ohio · Hernandez v. New York
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Statistical evidence may be used to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In both Ex parte Bird , 594 So.2d 676 (Ala. 1991), and Ex parte Yelder , 630 So.2d 107 (Ala. 1992), the prosecution struck substantial numbers of black veniremembers. In Bird , the venire was 36% black. The State used 17 of its 20(85%) peremptory strikes to remove blacks, leaving a jury that was 8% black. In Yelder , the venire was 31% black. The State used 24 of its 32(75%) strikes to remove blacks, leaving a jury that was 16% black. With reference to both cases, the Alabama Supreme Court stated:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that `the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment' is violated when a prosecutor uses a defendant's `silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)] warnings,' `to impeach [the] defendant's exculpatory story [that is] told for the first time at trial.' 426 U.S. at 619, 611 , 96 S.Ct. at 2245, 2241 ."”
1 later decision 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.