836 So. 2d 973 - Ex Parte Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Jackson argues that in light of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), and this Court's holding in Smith [ v. State, 554 So.2d 451 (Ala.1991) ], this error requires that the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing. We agree. "In Jackson v. Denno , the defendant's statement was admitted into evidence without a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to determine its admissibility. The defendant testified at trial that his statement was coerced. The trial court permitted the jury to determine the voluntariness of the statement. The United States Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to a posttrial evidentiary hearing, rather than a new trial, to determine whether the confession was voluntary. "In Smith, the trial court admitted the defendant's statements made at the scene of the accident, without conducting a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine their admissibility. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court erred in not conducting a hearing outside the presence of the jury and that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. This Court, however, applying the rationale in Jackson v. Denno , ordered that the case be remanded for a evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the statements. "In accordance with Smith, we remand this case for a hearing to determine the admissibility of Jackson's statement. If, after the hearing, the trial court d”

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

2. ““We commend the trial court for its thorough sentencing order and especially for its explanation for its override of the jury recommendation. The trial court found two statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) that the capital offense was committed while Jackson was engaged in a robbery or an attempted robbery, and (2) that the capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment. The trial court found one statutory mitigating circumstance: that Jackson was 18 years old at the time of the offense. It is evident from the trial court’s sentencing order that it independently weighed the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstance. Additionally, the trial court provided a detailed analysis of its consideration of the jury’s recommendation of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and the reasons it rejected that recommendation and sentenced Jackson to death. There is no evidence in the record before us indicating that bias, passion, or prejudice were factors in the trial court’s imposing the death sentence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State of Alabama.

3. “"Jackson requested a hearing to determine the admissibility of his statement, and the trial court denied him the opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, Jackson was deprived of his chance to testify about the circumstances relating to the voluntariness of his statement. If the trial court had conducted a hearing, Jackson could have testified and presented evidence indicating that the statement was not voluntarily made, without being subjected to cross-examination on other issues. Rule 104, Ala.R. Evid. If Jackson had testified in the hearing, conflicting evidence might have been presented to rebut the state's evidence of voluntariness. Therefore, in accordance with Duncan [ v. State, 278 Ala. 145 , 176 So.2d 840 (1965) ], Smith [ v. State, 554 So.2d 451 (Ala.1989)], and Felder [ v. State, 470 So.2d 1321 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) ], we hold that the trial court erred in determining the admissibility of Jackson's statement without conducting a hearing."”

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