819 So. 2d 643 - Rogers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Within the context of Batson , a ‘race-neutral’ explanation ‘means an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror. At this step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor’s explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.’ Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1866 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). ‘In evaluating the race-neutrality of an attorney’s explanation, a court must determine whether, assuming the proffered reasons for the peremptory challenges are true, the challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause as a matter of law.’ Id. ‘[Evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies “peculiarly within the trial judges’s province.” ’ Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365 , 111 S.Ct. at 1869 .””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Welch v. State · 896 So. 2d 584 - Clark v. State

2. ““Alabama courts have, in fact, recognized three legal provocations sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter: (1) when the accused witnesses his or her spouse in the act of adultery; (2) when the accused is assaulted or faced with an imminent assault on himself; and (3) when the accused witnesses an assault on a family member or close relative.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Peraita v. State · Spencer v. State

3. “"`[Section] 13A-6-3(a)(2) is designed to cover those situations where the jury does not believe a defendant is guilty of murder but also does not believe the killing was totally justified by self-defense.' Shultz v. State, 480 So.2d 73, 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). See also Shiflett v. State, 507 So.2d 1056 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). "`To constitute adequate legal provocation, it must be of a nature calculated to influence the passions of the ordinary, reasonable man....' " Biggs v. State, 441 So.2d 989, 992 (Ala.Crim.App.1983)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Peraita v. State · Spencer v. State