819 So. 2d 72 - Ex Parte 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. ““[A] subpoena compels the production of evidence. It is not a means of informational discovery, nor does it serve as an investigatory tool to enable a party to examine information or to interview a witness prior to trial to ascertain the existence of relevant evidence or testimony.” This case' is virtually identical to the case of State v. Reynolds, 819 So.2d 72 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). As we did in Reynolds , we confine our decision to the fourth prong in United States v. Nixon. In Reynolds, 819 So.2d at 78 (opinion on return to remand), quoting People v. Morrison, 148 Misc.2d 61, 66-67 , 559 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1017-18 (City Crim.Ct.1990), we stated: “ ‘A fundamental distinction exists between a defendant’s right to discovery ... and a defendant’s right to compel the production of evidence by subpoena ... The right to discovery is the right to receive information and documents from the prosecution and its agents concerning’ the case.' A. defendant’s right to discovery is governed and limited by statute [in Alabama, by rule].... The specific material that is required to be disclosed is specified in the statute and the timing of its disclosure is, likewise, governed by statute. “ ‘The right to compulsory process, on the other hand, is the right to compel witnesses to come into court pursuant to subpoena and give testimony or produce documentary or other physical evidence. The right to compulsory process has its roots in constitutional principles which recognize that a defendant must b”

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

2. ““Before a writ of mandamus may issue, the petitioner must show (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) no adequate remedy at law; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the reviewing court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex parte State