758 So. 2d 577 - Frazier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`The jury is presumed to follow the instructions given by the trial court.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Pettibone v. State · Russell v. State

2. “"`In considering what constitutes plain error in a capital case, we have adhered to the interpretation of the term "plain error" adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court, which follows the interpretation given that term by the federal courts. See Ex parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 935 , 106 S.Ct. 269 , 88 L.Ed.2d 276 (1985); Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). See also Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989). Plain error is error that has or probably has adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant, Ala.R.App.P. 45A, or is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings. Ex parte Womack. The failure to object at trial weighs against any claim of prejudice an appellant may make. Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991).'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knight v. State · 955 So. 2d 1037 - Adams v. State

3. ““In McNair v. State, 653 So.2d 320 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), this Court held: “ ‘ “[A]s a general rule, a demonstration by, or the misconduct of, a bystander or spectator during a criminal trial — including even a disturbance having a tendency to influence or disturb the jury — is not deemed to be sufficient reason for the granting of a new trial unless it appears that the rights of the accused were prejudiced thereby, and, generally, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be assumed that the jury was not prejudiced; similarly, manifestations of grief by spectators related to the victim of a crime, as a general matter, will not alone furnish good ground for a new trial, a showing being required that the case of the accused was prejudiced by such conduct.” “‘Annot., 31 A.L.R.4th 229 , 234-35 (1984). This same general rule also applies to emotional manifestations made while testifying. 31 A.L.R.4th at 235-36. See Hall v. State, 500 So.2d 1282, 1290-91 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (rape victim cried during her testimony); Smith v. State, 37 Ala.App. 116, 118 , 64 So.2d 620, 621 , cert. denied, 258 Ala. 647 , 64 So.2d 622 (1953) (assault victim “cried aloud” during testimony); James v. State, 44 Ala.App. 593, 595 , 217 So.2d 545, 547 (1969) (assault with intent to rape victim cried twice during testimony); Lee v. State, 265 Ala. 623, 627 , 93 So.2d 757, 761 (1957) (wife of deceased murder victim “sobbing” while testifying); Duff v. State, 40 Ala.App. 80, 83 , 111 So.2d 621, 624 (1958”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Johnson v. State