776 So. 2d 160 - Freeman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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. “"'"This court has stated that '[i]n reviewing allegedly improper prosecutorial comments, conduct, and questioning of witnesses, the task of this court is to consider their impact in the context of the particular trial, and not to view the allegedly improper acts in the abstract.' Bankhead v. State , 585 So.2d 97 , 106 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), remanded on other grounds, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala. 1991), aff'd on return to remand, 625 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala. 1993). See also Henderson v. State , 583 So.2d 305 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 1268 , 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992). `In judging a prosecutor's closing argument, the standard is whether the argument "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." Bankhead , 585 So.2d at 107, quoting Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168 , 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 2471 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo , 416 U.S. 637 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). `A prosecutor's statement must be viewed in the context of all of the evidence presented and in the context of the complete closing arguments to the jury.' Roberts v. State , [ 735 So.2d 1244 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997)], aff'd, [ 735 So.2d 1270 (Ala.), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 939 , 120 S.Ct. 346 , 145 L.Ed.2d 271 (1999)]. Moreover, `statements of counsel in argument to the jury must be viewed as delivered in the heat of debate; such statements are usually valued”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 807 So. 2d 18 - Reeves v. State · 790 So. 2d 267 - Griffin v. State

2. “"This court has stated that `[i]n reviewing allegedly improper prosecutorial comments, conduct, and questioning of witnesses, the task of this court is to consider their impact in the context of the particular trial, and not to view the allegedly improper acts in the abstract.' Bankhead v. State, 585 So.2d 97, 106 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), remanded on other grounds, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala.1991), aff'd on return to remand, 625 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), rev'd on other grounds, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993). See also Henderson v. State, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 1268 , 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992). `In judging a prosecutor's closing argument, the standard is whether the argument "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."' Bankhead, 585 So.2d at 107, quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2471 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). `A prosecutor's statement must be viewed in the context of all of the evidence presented and in the context of the complete closing arguments to the jury.' Roberts v. State, [ 735 So.2d 1244 (Ala.Cr.App.1997) ], aff'd, [ 735 So.2d 1270 (Ala.), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 939 , 120 S.Ct. 346 , 145 L.Ed.2d 271 (1999) ]. Moreover, `statements of counsel in argument to the jury must be viewed as delivered in the heat of debate; such statements are usually valued by the jury at thei”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 807 So. 2d 18 - Reeves v. State · 790 So. 2d 267 - Griffin v. State

3. “"`The capital crime of the intentional killing of the victim during a robbery or an attempted robbery is a single offense beginning with the act of robbing or attempting to rob and culminating with the intentional killing of the victim. The offense consists of two elements, robbing and intentionally killing. Davis v. State , 536 So.2d 110 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987), aff'd, 536 So.2d 118 (Ala. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028 , 109 S.Ct. 1766 , 104 L.Ed.2d 201 (1989); Magwood v. State , 494 So.2d 124 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), aff'd, 494 So.2d 154 (Ala.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995 , 107 S.Ct. 599 , 93 L.Ed.2d 599 (1986). "`"As the Alabama Supreme Court held in Cobern v. State , 273 Ala. 547 , 142 So.2d 869 (1962), `the fact that the *Page 43 victim was dead at the time the property was taken would not militate [against a finding] of robbery if the intervening time between the murder and the taking formed a continuous chain of events.' Clements v. State , 370 So.2d 708 , 713 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), aff'd in pertinent part, 370 So.2d 723 (Ala. 1979); Clark v. State , 451 So.2d 368 , 372 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). To sustain any other position `would be tantamount to granting to would-be robbers a license to kill their victims prior to robbing them in the hope of avoiding prosecution under the capital felony statute.' Thomas v. State , 460 So.2d 207 , 212 , (Ala.Crim.App. 1983), aff'd, 460 So.2d 216 (Ala. 1984). "`"Although a robbery committed as a `mere afterthought' and unrelated to the murde”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 807 So. 2d 18 - Reeves v. State · 914 So. 2d 883 - Eggers v. State