791 So. 2d 979 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"testimony that may be inadmissible may be rendered harmless by prior or subsequent lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred."' Jackson v. State , 791 So.2d 979 , 1013 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 791 So.2d 1043 (Ala. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 934 , 121 S.Ct. 1387 , 149 L.Ed.2d 311 (2001), quoting White v. State , 650 So.2d 538 , 541 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Rivers , 669 So.2d 239 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). See also Dawson v. State , 675 So.2d 897 , 900 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), aff'd, 675 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1996) (`The erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error.'); and Thompson v. State , 527 So.2d 777 , 780 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988) (`Testimony which may be apparently illegal upon admission may be rendered prejudicially innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred.')."”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lynch v. State · Hinkle v. State

2. ““[I]t is well settled that a nontestifying codefendant’s statement to police implicating the accused in the crime is inadmissible against the accused; it does not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule and, absent showing of reliability, its introduction violates the accused’s confrontation rights.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 908 So. 2d 961 - McGriff v. State · 121 So. 3d 403 - C.L.H. v. State

3. “"Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, a trial court's ruling on a motion for change of venue will not be overturned. Ex parte Magwood, 426 So.2d 929, 931 (Ala.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1355 (1983). In order to grant a motion for change of venue, the defendant must prove that there existed actual prejudice against the defendant or that the community was saturated with prejudicial publicity. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Franklin v. State, 424 So.2d 1353 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). Newspaper articles or widespread publicity, without more, are insufficient to grant a motion for change of venue. Anderson v. State, 362 So.2d 1296, 1298 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978). As the Supreme Court explained in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642-43 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961): "`To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court....' "The standard of fairness does not require jurors to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 , 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2035-2036 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). Thus, `[t]he proper manner for ascertaining whether adverse publici”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker v. State · 65 So. 3d 971 - Phillips v. State