659 So. 2d 968 - Archer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The evidentiary standard required to find that an inmate has violated a prison disciplinary rule is ‘some evidence.’ Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 , 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2774 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). This court has held that material alleged to be contraband does not-have to be tested to meet the evidentiary standard of ‘some evidence.’ Robinson v. State, 636 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). “ ‘All that is necessary is a statement by the arresting officer that his opinion of the nature of the substance is based on his experience or that he has examined the substance and has no doubt that the substance is contraband. There must, however, be something in the record as to why the officer thinks the substance is a controlled one.’ “Id., citing Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489 (Ala.1985); see also Whitson v. State, 513 So.2d 38 (Ala.Cr.App.1987).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reynolds v. State · Allen v. State

2. ““Q: In your disciplinary report you said (alleged) ‘green leafy substance that appears to be marijuana.’ What scientific tests were made to confirm that the said substance was in fact marijuana? “A: I didn’t say it was marijuana, I said it appeared to be marijuana. “Q: Could the said green leafy substance be yard grass or some other substance? “A: I’m not a toxicologist, I cannot say.””

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

3. ““[T]he corrections officer’s responses fail to show his expertise or the knowledge he relied upon to conclude the substance was marijuana as required by Robinson [v. State, 636 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Ala.Cr.App.1993)].””

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