Weaver v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably 723 So. 2d 742 - Burgess v. State (1997), 951 So. 2d 724 - Ex Parte Bryant (2002)
30 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he trial court's instructions `accurately informed the jury of its sentencing *Page 996 authority and in no way minimized the jury's role and responsibility in sentencing.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`[a]n intent; to cause the death of the deceased may be inferred from the character of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon and all other attending circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased.' Fears v. State , 451 So.2d 386 , 387 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). See also Swann v. State , 412 So.2d 1253 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Tucker v. State , 383 So.2d 579 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied 383 So.2d 586 (Ala. 1981)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'In Alabama, there is no requirement that a defendant be allowed to question each prospective juror individually during voir dire examination. This rule applies to capital cases, and the granting of a request for individual voir dire is discretionary with the trial court.' Coral v. State , 628 So.2d 954 , 968 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). 'The fact that the appellant's case involved capital murder is not alone reason to require individual voir dire. . . . A trial court's decision in denying individual voir dire examination of a jury panel will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.' Smith v. State , 588 So.2d 561 , 579 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). See also Henderson v. State , 583 So.2d 276 , 283 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), affirmed, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 1268 , 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992).”
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.