706 So. 2d 787 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`Extrajudicial confessions are prima facie involuntary and inadmissible, and the burden is upon the state to show voluntariness and a Miranda predicate in order for them to be admissible.' Mitchell v. State, 706 So.2d 787, 801 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997) (citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pressley v. State · 808 So. 2d 1148 - Taylor v. State

2. “"`While it is true that broader discovery is to be allowed in cases involving capital murder because of the possible imposition of the death penalty, Ex parte Monk, 557 So.2d 832, 836-37 (Ala.1989), a defendant must make a preliminary showing of particularized need before a court can balance this need against the policy favoring grand jury secrecy.' Arthur v. State, [711] So.2d [1031] at [1078] [(Ala.Crim.App.1996)]. Mitchell did not make a preliminary showing of particularized need for the grand jury information. The trial court correctly denied the motion. "Additionally, Mitchell contends that the grand jury material was needed to challenge the propriety of the proceedings. We agree with the State's argument that the propriety of the proceedings cannot be determined from the testimony of the witnesses and that Mitchell has not alleged with any specificity what improprieties the grand jury committed. We also agree with the State that the appellant's cited authority, Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 , 110 S.Ct. 1376 , 108 L.Ed.2d 572 (1990), does not support his argument on this issue. Butterworth stands for the proposition that a grand jury witness is not forever prohibited from disclosing his or her own grand jury testimony after the term of the grand jury has ended. Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 626 , 110 S.Ct. 1376, 1378 , 108 L.Ed.2d 572 . Butterworth is distinguishable from the present case, where the defense seeks the testimony of all grand jury witnesses on wh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 868 So. 2d 1128 - Stallworth v. State

3. “"Mitchell contends that he is entitled to an acquittal or a new trial because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. He argues that the State breached a discovery agreement between the parties by not producing certain material evidence he requested and that the State actively misled him as to the existence of that evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). According to Mitchell, the prosecution failed to disclose information gotten as a result of an interview with Isaac Ruffin contrary to the State's representation in open court before trial that the information did not exist. Mitchell contends that Ruffin's testimony was prejudicial because it contradicted Mitchell's version of the events of that night, thus casting doubt on Mitchell's credibility. Also, Mitchell contends that defense counsel would have changed the way they prepared and presented the case had they been made aware of this information. "In a tape-recorded statement given to police on July 23, 1993, Ruffin stated that no one was with Mitchell when Mitchell borrowed and then returned Ruffin's car. However, according to the defense, later that same day Ruffin told Detective Long that someone had been with Mitchell when he borrowed the car. `The knowledge of government agents working on the case, including a deputy sheriff, as to the existence of exculpatory evidence will be imputed to the prosecutor. Sexton v. State , 529 So.2d 1041 , 1045 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988).'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 993 So. 2d 35 - Egbuonu v. State