690 So. 2d 449 - Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`1. Evidence that the "jurors in question share[d] only this one characteristic — their membership in the group — and that in all other respects they [were] as heterogeneous as the community as a whole.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. State · 717 So. 2d 827 - George v. State

2. “"`Section 12-21-222 "[d]oes not require corroborative testimony as to material elements of the crime. . . ." Ex parte Bell , 475 So.2d 609 , 613 (Ala.), cert denied, 474 U.S. 1038 , 106 S.Ct. 607 , 88 L.Ed.2d 585 (1985), but, the corroborative evidence must "tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime." § 12-21-222 , Code of Alabama 1975. "The corroboration of an accomplice may be shown by circumstantial evidence." Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d 474 , 515 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bosner v. State · 766 So. 2d 154 - Ex Parte Hardley

3. “"`[I]t is well settled that "a defendant has a right to cross-examine an accomplice as to the nature of any agreement he has with the government or any expectation or hope that he may have that he will be treated leniently in exchange for his cooperation. Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308 , 315-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 1109-10 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)." United States v. Barrett , 766 F.2d 609 , 614 (1st Cir.) (emphasis added [in Starks ]) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 923 , 106 S.Ct. 258 , 88 L.Ed.2d 264 (1985). If the accomplice has entered into a plea bargain agreement with the State, "the full terms of this agreement must be allowed to be placed before the jury." Dawkins v. State , 494 So.2d 940 , 943 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986) (emphasis added [in Starks ]). The accomplice's agreement with the State has bearing on his credibility and bias. Id. Additionally, the terms of the agreement provide the jury with an "understanding] of the possible motivations of the accomplice as he sits on the stand." State v. Donelson , 302 N.W.2d 125 , 131 (Iowa 1981), quoted with approval in Dawkins v. State , 494 So.2d at 943 . Moreover, where, as in this case, the accomplice is a key witness, the trial court has little, if any, discretion to curtail an accused's attempts to show bias or motive on the part of the witness. See Jones v. State , 531 So.2d 1251 , 1254 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988); Proctor v. State , 331 So.2d 828 , 830 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976).' "Starks v. State , 594 So.2d 187 , 197 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). "However, in t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 965 So. 2d 1112 - Jennings v. State