680 So. 2d 909 - Ex Parte Slaton’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 778 So. 2d 199 - Hyde v. State (1998), 723 So. 2d 742 - Burgess v. State (1997)
69 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Lockett v. Ohio · Darden v. Wainwright · Allen v. United States · Payne v. Tennessee
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`While Lockett and its progeny require consideration of all evidence submitted as mitigation, whether the evidence is actually found to be mitigating is in the discretion of the sentencing authority.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stewart v. State · Jenkins v. State“" Ex parte Holton, 590 So.2d 918 (Ala. 1991), sets forth the legal analysis to be applied in determining if a proper chain of custody has been established: "`The chain of custody is composed of "links." A "link" is anyone who handled the item. The State must identify each link from the time the item was seized. In order to show a proper chain of custody, the record must show each link and also the following with regard to each link's possession of the item: "(1) [the] receipt of the item; (2) [the] ultimate disposition of the item, i.e., transfer, destruction, or retention; and (3) [the] safeguarding and handling of the item between receipt and disposition." Imwinklereid, The Identification of Original, Real Evidence, 61 Mil. L.Rev. 145, 159 (1973). "`If the State or any other proponent of demonstrative evidence, fails to identify a link or fails to show for the record any one of the three criteria as to each link, the result is a "missing" link, and the item is inadmissible. If, however, the State has shown each link and has shown all three criteria as to each link, but has done so with circumstantial evidence, as opposed to the direct testimony of the "link," as to one or more criteria or as to one or more links, the result is a "weak" link. When the link is "weak," a question of credibility and weight is presented, not one of admissibility.' " 590 So.2d at 920 . While each link in the chain of custody must be identified, it is not necessary that each link testify in order ”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Reynolds v. State · Martin v. State“[t]rial judges are presumed to follow their own instructions, and they are presumed to know the law and to follow it in making their decisions.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Maples v. State · Waldrop v. State
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.