Arthur v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Arthur v. King (2007), 723 So. 2d 742 - Burgess v. State (1997)
3 federal appellate · 61 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 Faretta v. California · Swain v. State of Alabama · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Enmund v. Florida · Brewster v. Derwinski
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`This court has held that arrest and conviction records of potential jurors do not qualify as the type of discoverable evidence that falls within the scope of Brady and that a trial court will not be held in error for denying an appellant's motion to discover such documents. Slinker v. State, 344 So.2d 1264 (Ala.Cr. App.1977). Cf., Clifton v. State, 545 So.2d 173 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (the nondisclosed evidence was not exculpatory, thus Brady was inapplicable). In other words, the appellant does not have an absolute right to the disclosure of the arrest and conviction records of prospective jurors. See Slinker, supra. Cf., Davis v. State, 554 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr. App.1984), aff'd, 554 So.2d 1111 (Ala. 1989), rehearing overruled, 569 So.2d 738 (Ala.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1127 , 111 S.Ct. 1091 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1196 (1991) (defendant is not entitled to the general disclosure of the criminal records of the state's witnesses); Wright v. State, 424 So.2d 684 (Ala.Cr.App.1982) (no absolute right to disclosure of criminal records of state's witnesses). "`Several jurisdictions have similarly held. See, e.g., People v. Murtishaw, 29 Cal.3d 733 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 738 , 631 P.2d 446 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922 , 102 S.Ct. 1280 , 71 L.Ed.2d 464 (1982) (trial judge has discretionary authority to permit defense access to jury records); Moon v. State, 258 Ga. 748 , 375 S.E.2d 442 (1988), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 982 , 111 S.Ct. 1638 , 113 L.Ed.2d 733 (1991) (trial court did not err in deny”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“While corroborating evidence need not be strong, it `... must be of substantive character, must be inconsistent with the innocence of a defendant and must do more than raise a suspicion of guilt.' McCoy v. State, 397 So.2d 577 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 589 (Ala.1981).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and such corroborative evidence, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof, is not sufficient."”
5 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.