715 So. 2d 825 - Boyd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 51 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]he district attorney's noting in reading the indictment to the jury, that it was signed by him, is not an injection of his personal belief or otherwise improper. Similarly, in Arthur v. State, 711 So.2d 1031 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), the appellant argued that the prosecutor improperly inserted his credibility in an attempt to bolster the possibility of conviction by stating that the indictment had been signed by him in his capacity as district attorney. This Court stated: "`Despite the appellant's argument to the contrary, there was no implication by the prosecutor in this case that he believed the appellant to be guilty and, therefore, was prosecuting the case. The jury was amply instructed that an indictment is not an indication of guilt but rather a vehicle for bringing an individual to trial and the prosecutor's acknowledgment that he signed the indictment in his capacity as district attorney was a statement of fact rather than an opinion or insertion of credibility.' " Arthur, 711 So.2d at 1054 ."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Minor v. State · Maples v. State

2. “"A sentencer in a capital case may not refuse to consider or be `precluded from considering' mitigating factors. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110 , 102 S.Ct. 869, 874 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2964-65 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)). The defendant in a capital case generally must be allowed to introduce any relevant mitigating evidence regarding the defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense, and consideration of that evidence is a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death. California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 , 107 S.Ct. 837 , 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987); Ex parte Henderson, 616 So.2d 348 (Ala.1992); Haney v. State, 603 So.2d 368 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), aff'd, 603 So.2d 412 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 925 , 113 S.Ct. 1297 , 122 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993). Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision of whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight to be given it rests with the sentencer. Carroll v. State, 599 So.2d 1253 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), aff'd, 627 So.2d 874 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171 , 114 S.Ct. 1207 , 127 L.Ed.2d 554 (1994). See also Ex parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 935 , 106 S.Ct. 269 , 88 L.Ed.2d 276 (1985). Moreover, the trial court is not required to specify in its sentencing order each item of proposed nonstatutory mitigating evidence off”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peraita v. State · Maples v. State

3. “"`"[A] change of venue must be granted only when it can be shown that the pretrial publicity has so `pervasively saturated' the community as to make `the court proceedings nothing more than a "hollow formality"' ... or when actual prejudice can be demonstrated. The burden of showing this saturation of the community or actual prejudice lies with the appellant."' " George v. State, [717] So.2d [827] at 833 [(Ala.Cr.App.1996) ], quoting Oryang v. State, 642 So.2d 979, 983 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993). ". . . . "`The defendant is not entitled to jurors who are totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved in the case or to jurors who never entertained a preconceived notion as to the defendant's guilt of innocence. Ex parte Grayson, 479 So.2d 76, 80 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 , 106 S.Ct. 189 , 88 L.Ed.2d 157 (1985). A defendant is entitled to a trial by jurors who can lay aside any preconceived impressions or opinions and render a verdict based on the evidence which is presented at trial, id. The record in this case indicates that the appellant received such a trial. See also Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 , 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). Because the appellant has failed to show that the pre-trial publicity in this case was "inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State, [ 549 So.2d 122 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) ], or "presumptively prejudicial," Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.Ap”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Minor v. State · 825 So. 2d 134 - Broadnax v. State