Loggins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 105 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The question of admissibility of evidence is generally left to the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination on that question will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.”

   20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stephens v. State · Walden v. State

2. “[n]ot every comment that refers or alludes to a non-testifying defendant is an impermissible comment on his failure to testify....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ragland v. Commonwealth · White v. Com. of Ky.

3. “"Not every comment that refers or alludes to a nontestifying defendant is an impermissible comment on his failure to testify; the prosecutor has a right to comment on reasonable inferences from the evidence: "`"During closing argument, the prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference. Rutledge v. State, 523 So.2d 1087 (Ala. Crim.App.1987), rev'd on other grounds, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988). Wide discretion is allowed the trial court in regulating the arguments of counsel. Racine v. State, 290 Ala. 225 , 275 So.2d 655 (1973). In evaluating allegedly prejudicial remarks by the prosecutor in closing argument, no fixed standard can be applied, and each case must be judged on its own merits. Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988)." "`. . . . "... Moreover, remorse is also a proper subject of closing arguments. Dobyne v. State, 672 So.2d 1319, 1348-49 (Ala.Cr.App.), on return to remand, 672 So.2d 1353 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 672 So.2d 1354 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1169 , 116 S.Ct. 1571 , 134 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996). "`. . . . "... Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503, 536 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 632 So.2d 543 (Ala.1993), aff'd, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995) (wherein this Court held that a reference, during the sentencing stage of the trial, to the defendant's lack of remorse was not improper argument, ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. State · 838 So. 2d 413 - Smith v. State