718 So. 2d 90 - Madison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 18 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court set out the components of a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection. In addition to showing that the State used peremptory challenges to remove members of a cognizable group to which he belongs and relying upon the fact that peremptory strikes permit discrimination, a claimant also must show that these facts and any other relevant facts raise an inference that the prosecutor used his strikes in a discriminatory manner. In Ex parte Branch , 526 So.2d 609 , 622-623 (Ala. 1987), the Alabama Supreme Court explained that relevant factors could include, but were not limited to, the following: evidence that the jurors shared only the characteristic of their group membership and were heterogeneous in all other respects; a pattern of strikes against black jurors; past conduct of the prosecutor; type and manner of the prosecutor's questions during voir dire, including desultory voir dire; type and manner of questions to the challenged juror, including a lack of questions or meaningful questions; disparate treatment of veniremembers with the same characteristics or type of responses; disparate examination of members of the venire; circumstantial evidence of intent due to the use of most challenges to strike blacks; and the use of *Page 763 peremptory challenges to dismiss all or most black jurors."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · 730 So. 2d 1251 - Young v. State

2. “"The appellant's evidence was insufficient to show that the struck jurors shared only the characteristic of race. It also was insufficient to show a pattern of strikes against black jurors, particularly in light of the increased percentage of blacks who served on the jury relative to both the initial panel and the population of the county. The only evidence that arguably could lead to an inference of discrimination was a lack of questions or meaningful questions to 3 of the challenged jurors. The trial court's determination as to whether the defendant has established purposeful racial discrimination should be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. Ex parte Branch , [ 526 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1987)]. The trial court's denial of the appellant's Batson motion in the present case was not clearly erroneous."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 999 So. 2d 561 - Madison v. State · 723 So. 2d 742 - Burgess v. State

3. “"Venue should be changed when there is a showing of inherently prejudicial publicity that has so saturated the community as to have a probable impact upon the jurors. Jackson v. State , 516 So.2d 726 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). Here, the appellant has presented no evidence with regard to prior publicity. With regard to probable impact, the record reveals that 8 of 60 veniremembers responded that they had some prior knowledge concerning the appellant's case. The trial court conducted an individual voir dire of those eight and permitted the appellant to challenge for cause all of them to whom he objected. One was struck because he had `already given us a number of reasons,' another stated that he `believe[d] that if the Defendant was indicted and he's here, probably had one or two court trials already, that he's probably guilty, sir,' and the third had been acquainted with the victim through her job as a substitute teacher. The remaining venire-members stated that their knowledge of the appellant's case was general in nature and that they could render a fair and impartial verdict. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the appellant's motion for a change of venue."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 999 So. 2d 561 - Madison v. State