68 So. 3d 211 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Q. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. “ ‘A. [LORETTA:] But I thought he was talking about doing something to “me.” I asked still, “What you going to do?” He said, “Never f-mind what I’m going to- do.” He said, “Because what I’m going to do,” he said, “you know, you ain’t going to be able to take it.” “ ‘Q. Okay. “ ‘A. And he don’t lie. He didn’t lie. I ain’t able to take it. (witness crying) ‘“Q. Okay. “ ‘A. He killed my child. “ ‘Q. Okay. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Just take a minute. Take a minute. Take a minute. “ ‘A. Oh, God help me. “ ‘Q. Take an easy breath. “ ‘A. Help me, Jesus. Help me, God. “ ‘Q. Breathe. “ ‘A. Help me, Lord Jesus, Jehovah; please help me. “ ‘Q. Ma’am-okay? “ ‘A. Thank you, Jesus. “ ‘Q. Let me ask you a question. You okay? You okay? “ ‘A. I never be okay anymore. “ ‘Q. All right. Well, let me ask you one more question, and I will be done. Okay? “‘A. Okay. “‘Q. Okay? “ ‘A. Go ahead. “ ‘Q. All right. About how long before [Milton] was killed did that conversation take place? “ ‘A. Within a week or two, no longer; wasn’t quite two weeks. “‘Q. Okay. “ ‘A. It was early one morning. I won’t forget it. ‘“Q. Okay. “ ‘A. He was riding along the side, and he started coming by the house and stuff, flashing a whole lot of l’s in the windows, and you know, we be out in the yard, and he just come back peeking (sic), doing the peeking things (sic), you know. “‘Q. Okay. “ ‘A. Peeking things. And I paid no attention. I thought he was talking about doing something to me. But then”

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

2. ““Such testimony from a lay witness was clearly inadmissible. Rule 701, Ala. R. Evid., provides, in pertinent part, that a lay ‘witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions and inferences which are ... rationally based on the perception of the witness.’ ‘The Advisory Committee’s Notes on [this] portion of Rule 701 ... indicate that “[t]his is no more than a restatement of the ‘firsthand knowledge rule,’ found in Ala. R. Evid. 602, tailored to opinions. No lay witness may give an opinion based upon facts that the witness did not actually observe.’” Musgrove Constr., Inc. v. Malley, 912 So.2d 227, 239-40 (Ala.Civ.App.2003). See also Lewis v. State, 889 So.2d 623, 646 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).””

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