701 So. 2d 66 - MacEwan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 723 So. 2d 742 - Burgess v. State (1997), 740 So. 2d 1115 - Davis v. State (1998)
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 Caldwell v. Mississippi · Ake v. Oklahoma · Lee v. Brown · Wrenn v. Weinberger · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Based on the foregoing, we conclude that for an indigent defendant to be entitled to expert assistance at public expense, he must show a reasonable probability that the expert would be of assistance in the defense and that the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial. To meet this standard, the indigent defendant must show, with reasonable specificity, that the expert is absolutely necessary to answer a substantial issue or question raised by the state or to support a critical element of the defense. If the indigent defendant meets this standard, then the trial court can authorize the hiring of an expert at public expense."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[C]ircumstantial evidence may form the proof of the corpus delicti; if facts are presented from which a jury may draw a reasonable inference that a crime has been committed, the case must be submitted to the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude.' " Cumbo v. State , 368 So.2d 871 , 874 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979), citing United States v. Black , 497 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1974). Additionally, circumstantial evidence may form the proof of the corpus delicti; if facts are presented from which a jury may draw a reasonable inference that a crime has been committed, the case must be submitted to the jury. Breeding v. State , 523 So.2d 496 , 500 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987)."”
2 later decisions 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.