Dailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The test to be applied [in qualifying a prospective juror] is probable prejudice. Probable prejudice for any reason disqualifies a prospective juror. Qualification of a juror is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and, on appeal, this court will look to the questions propounded and the answers given by the prospective juror to see if this *Page 343 discretion was properly exercised.' Alabama Power Co. v. Henderson , 342 So.2d 323 , 327 (Ala. 1977). "`To justify a challenge of a juror for cause there must be a statutory ground . . ., or some matter which imports absolute bias or favor, and leaves nothing to the discretion of the trial court.' Nettles v. State , 435 So.2d 146 , 149 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, Ex parte Nettles , 435 So.2d 151 (Ala. 1983). "Even `[p]roof that the juror has a biased or fixed opinion is insufficient. There must be proof that the opinion was "so fixed that it would bias the verdict of the juror."' Clark v. State , 443 So.2d 1287 , 1288 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). `[I]f the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court,' he is not subject to challenge for cause. Mahan v. State , 508 So.2d 1180 , 1182 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 340 - Dailey v. State

2. “"Although there was proof of some prior bias on the part of K.K. because she openly informed the trial court that she had formed an opinion in the case, such bias was far from the absolute bias that would have prevented her from serving on the jury and rendering a fair and impartial verdict. The trial court extensively questioned K.K. to determine whether she could set aside her opinion, listen to the evidence, and render a decision based only on that evidence, and she repeatedly assured the trial court that she could do so. `A juror who brings his thoughts out into the open in response to voir dire questions may be the one who later "bends over backwards" to be fair.' Mahan v. State , 508 So.2d 1180 , 1182 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 340 - Dailey v. State

3. “"[The Court]: Do you have a fixed opinion as to what the outcome — "[K.K.]: Well, I actually formed an opinion last summer and I have maintained that opinion. But that's not to say I wouldn't change my mind based on the evidence. "[The Court]: Are you saying that you could be in a frame of mind to sit on the jury and render a fair verdict based only on the evidence that you hear in court?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 340 - Dailey v. State