775 So. 2d 857 - Melson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 35 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"`"[R]esidual doubt" about guilt is not a mitigating circumstance. We have defined mitigating circumstances as facts about the defendant's character or background, or the circumstances of the particular offense, that may call for a penalty less than death. [citations omitted.] "Residual doubt" is not a factor about the defendant or the circumstances of the crime. It is instead a lingering uncertainty about facts, a state of mind that exists somewhere between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "absolute certainty."'"'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bryant v. State · 947 So. 2d 1079 - Harris v. State

2. “"`"Probable cause exists if facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the suspect has committed a crime. `In dealing with probable cause, however, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act....' `"The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt."` `Probable cause to arrest is measured against an objective standard and, if the standard is met, it is unnecessary that the officer subjectively believe that he has a basis for the arrest.' The officer need not have enough evidence or information to support a conviction in order to have probable cause for arrest. Only a probability, not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause." "` Dixon v. State, 588 So.2d 903, 906 (Ala.1991) (citations omitted). "`In determining whether probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists, this court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Sockwell, supra.'" "727 So.2d at 156-57."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 795 So. 2d 788 - Smith v. State · 781 So. 2d 257 - McWhorter v. State

3. “"The Court in Harris held that `the Eighth Amendment does not require the State to define the weight the sentencing judge must give to an advisory jury verdict.' 513 U.S. at 512 , 115 S.Ct. at 1036 . The Court further held: "`The Constitution permits the trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital sentence. It is thus not offended when a State further requires the sentencing judge to consider a jury's recommendation and trusts the judge to give it the proper weight.' " 513 U.S. at 515 , 115 S.Ct. at 1037 ; see also Boyd v. State, 715 So.2d 825, 846 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 715 So.2d 852 (Ala.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 968 , 119 S.Ct. 416 , 142 L.Ed.2d 338 (1998). "Alabama's capital sentencing statute adequately channels the trial court's discretion so as to prevent arbitrary results.' Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 94 (Ala.Cr.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 969 , 118 S.Ct. 418 , 139 L.Ed.2d 320 (1997), citing Harris and rejecting claims that Alabama's statute permits a standardless override."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 777 So. 2d 781 - Whitehead v. State · 781 So. 2d 257 - McWhorter v. State