Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““‘It is of the highest importance in the administration of justice that the court should not invade the province of the jury, should give them no intimation of its opinion on the facts, etc. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that juries watch with anxiety to gather from the court some intimation as to what the judge thinks should be their finding,’ etc. Fuhrman [Furhman ] v. Mayor, etc., 54 Ala. 263 , quoting approvingly from the opinion in Hair v. Little, 28 Ala. [236] 248-249 [1856]. See also, McIntosh v. State, 140 Ala. 137 , 37 South. 223 [1904]; Singer Mfg Co. v. Greenleaf, 100 Ala. 272 , 14 South. 109 [1893]; Linnehan v. State, 116 Ala. 471 , 22 South. 662 [1898]; Spicer v. State, 105 Ala. 123 , 16 South. 706 [1894], “In charging the jury, a judge should not by the matter or manner of his charge indicate what his own views are as to the effect of the testimony; he should not give his impression of the testimony or its effect as produced upon his mind, for under our practice this is an invasion of the province of the jury. Andrews v. State, 159 Ala. 14 , 48 South. 858 [1909].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burton v. State