736 So. 2d 664 - MacK v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"By our account, the tape played for 31 minutes and 48 seconds. Among the contents on the videotape were footage of the outside of the car, the inside of the car, the car's floorboards, the car tag, the area around the car, a spot on the ground, projectiles on the ground, repeated footage of [the victim's] body as it lay in the trunk — including close-up footage of [the victim's] face — the removal of [the victim's] body from the car trunk to a gurney, officers' attempting to straighten [the victim's] arm, which was affected by rigor mortis, the trunk after the removal of [the victim's] body, the removal of [the victim's] wallet from the trunk, the inside of [the victim's] wallet, and the wallet being placed on the sheet covering [the victim's] body as it lay on the gurney. "At trial Mack requested that the repeated footage of [the victim's] body not be shown to the jury. He suggested some editing or covering the television screen to conceal this from the jury. The trial court denied the request. On appeal, Mack argues that the entire tape was cumulative to other evidence presented at trial; that it did not prove or disprove a disputed issue; that it did not illustrate or elucidate some relevant fact or evidence; and that it did not corroborate or disprove other evidence. "The videotape of the crime scene, including the footage of [the victim's] body, was admissible. "In Ex parte Siebert, 555 So.2d 780 , 783 (Ala. 1989), a capital case, Siebert argued that `the court erred in”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gissendanner v. State

2. “"`"The weight and probative value to be given to the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the resolution of conflicting testimony, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence are for the jury.... A defendant's guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence."' Mitchell v. State, 450 So.2d 181 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (quoting Smith v. State, 698 So.2d 189, 214 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 698 So.2d 219 (1997))."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 792 So. 2d 1169 - Ex Parte Lucas

3. “`Under the doctrine of invited error, an appellant cannot voluntarily invite error by his own conduct and then seek to profit thereby.' Kirkland [v. State], 581 So.2d [1207,] at 1210 [(Ala.Crim.App.1990)] (citing Timmons v. State, 487 So.2d 975 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 974 So. 2d 1034 - Bedsole v. State