828 So. 2d 340 - Dailey 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 20 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 discretion was properly exercised." Alabama Power Co. v. Henderson , 342 So.2d 323 , 327 (Ala. 1977).'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bowman v. State · Ex Parte Colby

2. “"We first consider whether the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge of K.K. for cause. ". . . . "... We agree with [the] reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeals; the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge of K.K. for cause. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in failing to perform a harmless-error analysis before reversing the trial court's judgment. "Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P., reads: "`No judgment may be reversed or set aside, nor new trial granted in any civil or criminal case on the ground of misdirection of the jury, the giving or refusal of special charges or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, nor for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which the appeal is taken or application is made, after an examination of the entire cause, it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.' "In Evans v. State, [ 794 So.2d 411 (Ala.2000) ], the trial court had granted the State's challenge of a veniremember for cause based upon the fact that she was married to defense counsel's uncle. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court had erred in granting the challenge and that Evans's constitutional right to a fair trial had been violated. Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Evans's convictions. This Court held that the trial court had erred in granting the State's challenge for cause, but held that ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 833 So. 2d 1 - Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hosp.

3. “"As long as the jury that heard the case was impartial, the right guaranteed by [the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to] the United States Constitution was not violated. See [ Ross v. Oklahoma , 487 U.S. 81 , 87-88, 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) ]; see also United States v. Martinez-Salazar , 528 U.S. 304 [, 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 ] (2000). This rule would also apply to § 6 of the Alabama Constitution, which gives the defendant the right to a trial 'by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense was committed.' The plain meaning of this language is that the defendant is entitled only to an impartial jury and that unless the defendant can show that a trial court's erroneous ruling during jury selection prevented the jury from being impartial, there is no violation of § 6."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henderson v. State