766 So. 2d 975 - Ex Parte Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 20 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In the case before us, the failure of the defendant-petitioner’s trial counsel to preserve error for the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter relegated the defendant-petitioner to the plain-error rule, which increased the burden on the defendant-petitioner to prove prejudice. Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652, 657 (Ala.1998); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 489 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991), aff’d, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991); and Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106, 1111 (Ala.1985) (a failure to object at trial, while not precluding our review, will weigh against any claim of prejudice). Indeed, plain error review apparently availed the defendant-petitioner nothing on his direct appeal, for neither the Court of Criminal Appeals nor this Court even mentioned the issue of the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the respective opinions at that stage. Thomas v. State, [ 539 So.2d 375 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) ], and Ex parte Thomas, [ 539 So.2d 399 (Ala.1988)]. [[Image here]] "The issue of whether trial defense counsel’s not preserving error and thereby relegating the defendant-petitioner to plain-error review prejudiced the defendant-petitioner depends on whether he would have obtained a reversal and a new trial (an obviously better result) if his trial defense counsel had preserved the error for review. For the reasons ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Taylor · Taylor v. State

2. ““[T]he degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the grade of an offense must amount to ‘insanity.’ Mere drunkenness, voluntarily produced, is never a defense against a criminal charge, and can never palliate or reduce the grade of an offense, unless it is so extreme as to render impossible some mental condition which is an essential element of the criminal act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 307 F. Supp. 2d 1277 - McNair v. Campbell

3. “neither the Court of Criminal Appeals nor this Court even mentioned the [underlying substantive] issue . . . in the respective opinions at that stage.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 957 So. 2d 492 - Woods v. State