728 So. 2d 172 - Ex Parte Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2026
20 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 Scharffe v. Perkins · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Porzig v. Nolden · Johnson v. United States · Wrenn v. Ohio Department of Mental Health
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]hain of custody requirements do not apply with the same force to items of evidence which are unique and identifiable in themselves.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`In Ex parte Holton , 590 So.2d 918 , 920 (Ala. 1991), the Alabama Supreme Court stated:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ “The test for determining the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence ... is through a ‘subtraction process.’ The test is generally stated: “ ‘ “ ‘[F]irst, the evidence of the accomplice must be eliminated, and then, if upon examination of all other evidence, there is sufficient incriminating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, there is sufficient corroboration .... ’ “ ‘ “This rule is codified in Alabama Code 1975, Section 12-21-222. “ ‘ “The corroboration which is sufficient to support the accomplices’ testimony must be of some fact tending to prove the guilt of the defendant. “ ‘ ‘ . It must be of a substantive character, must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and must do more than raise a suspicion of guilt.’”” “ ‘ “ ‘[E]vidence which merely raises a conjecture, surmise, speculation, or suspicion that [the] accused is the guilty person is not ... sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice to warrant a conviction.’ ” ’ “This Court has defined the verb ‘to corroborate,’ in the context of § 12-21-222. “ ‘To corroborate means to make more certain, to confirm, or to strengthen, and the corroborative testimony need not be strong or sufficient in and of itself to support a conviction. Corroborative evidence need not directly convict the accused of the crime, but need only tend to do so.’ ””
1 later decision 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.