722 So. 2d 806 - Freeman v. State.’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

cited by 25 later decisions

states following

August 2017

most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 929 So. 2d 491 - Brooks v. State (2005), 814 So. 2d 899 - Ward v. State (2000)

25 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Young · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Darden v. Wainwright

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

“To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must show that `”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Moody v. State · Waldrop v. State
“" 'There is no Brady [v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963),] violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.' Johnson [v. State] , 612 So.2d [1288] at 1294 [ (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) ] ; see also Jackson v. State , 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala. Cr. App. 1993), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala. 1995). ' "Evidence is not 'suppressed' if the defendant either knew ... or should have known ... of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence." United States v. LeRoy , 687 F.2d 610 , 618 (2d Cir. 1982) [, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1174 , 103 S.Ct. 823 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983) ].' Carr v. State , 505 So.2d 1294 , 1297 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987) (noting, 'The statement the appellant contends was suppressed in this case was his own, and no reason was set forth to explain why he should not have been aware of it.'). Where there is no suppression of evidence, there is no Brady violation. Carr , 505 So.2d at 1297 .''”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Jenkins v. State · Waldrop v. State
“"A statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he declarant testifies at trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . . consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 974 So. 2d 1034 - Bedsole v. State

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.