656 So. 2d 394 - Bishop 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. “"Under the facts of this case, this Court is unable to find that the appellant has been denied his right to a speedy trial. However, neither can we determine that he has not been denied a speedy trial. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that this cause be remanded to the trial court with directions that the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing. The appellant shall have the right to be represented by counsel and the right to be present at that hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court shall apply the four-part test of Barker v. Wingo, supra, and enter specific and detailed written findings addressing the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the appellant. The transcript of the hearing and the written findings of the trial court shall be forwarded to this Court within 120 days from the date of this opinion. On remand, should it become necessary, the trial court is authorized to grant the appellant whatever relief it deems reasonable."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 716 So. 2d 234 - Mansel v. State · 885 So. 2d 813 - Parris v. State

2. “"`The admission of rebuttal evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. Crow v. State , 365 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. denied , 365 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1979). "The State may, in the discretion of the trial court, introduce in rebuttal any competent evidence which explains or is a direct reply to or a contradiction of material evidence by the defendant." Sprinkle v. State , 368 So.2d 554 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), writ quashed , 368 So.2d 565 (Ala. 1979) (emphasis added).'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 43 - Robitaille v. State · 914 So. 2d 372 - Minor v. State

3. “`The first Barker criterion, the length of delay, is a threshold requirement for finding a violation of the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right. If the delay is considered excessive, there will be a presumption of prejudice, and the court will consider the other Barker criteria.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 940 So. 2d 331 - Irvin v. State