Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights and that the confession was voluntarily given.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 836 So. 2d 915 - Jackson v. State · 852 So. 2d 801 - Carroll v. State

2. “"`Regarding this element of the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), analysis, it is an established principle of Alabama law that a defendant is not denied a speedy trial merely because of the passage of time.' Bishop v. State, 656 So.2d 398, 400 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). "`This court has held that delays of more than 13 months [the length of the delay in [ State v. ] Anderson[, 640 So.2d 1061 (Ala.Cr.App.1994)]] were not presumptively prejudicial. See Vo v. State, 612 So.2d 1323 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (15-month delay not presumptively prejudicial); Kelley v. State, 568 So.2d 405 (Ala.Cr.App.1990) (15-month delay not presumptively prejudicial); Arnett v. State, 551 So.2d 1158 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (20-month delay not presumptively prejudicial); Dykes v. State, 452 So.2d 1377 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984) (15-month delay not presumptively prejudicial).' "[ State v. ] Anderson , 640 So.2d [1061], 1063 [(Ala.Cr.App.1994)]."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 809 So. 2d 841 - Apicella v. State

3. “`This court has held that delays of more than 13 months [the length of the delay in [ State v. ] Anderson[, 640 So.2d 1061 (Ala.Cr.App.1994)]] were not presumptively prejudicial. See Vo v. State, 612 So.2d 1323 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (15-month delay not presumptively prejudicial); Kelley v. State, 568 So.2d 405 (Ala.Cr.App.1990) (15-month delay not presumptively prejudicial); Arnett v. State, 551 So.2d 1158 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (20-month delay not presumptively prejudicial); Dykes v. State, 452 So.2d 1377 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984) (15-month delay not presumptively prejudicial).'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 809 So. 2d 841 - Apicella v. State