Banks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" Black's Law Dictionary 755 (7th ed. 1999) defines `impeach' as `[t]o discredit the veracity of (a witness).' The evidence is not impeaching in that Banks did not seek to discredit the veracity of any witnesses. Rather, the results of the [medical test] served to controvert, that is, disputed the State's witnesses's findings and opinions, not their credibility. "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 So. 3d 720 - Ex Parte Ward, 1090132 (Ala. 6-3-2011) · 890 So. 2d 188 - Farris v. State

2. ““We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala. R.Crim. P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial and then enter an order either granting or denying the motion.””

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

3. “"[I]n order to establish the necessity for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the appellant must prove: (1) *Page 581 that the evidence was discovered after the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered prior to trial by due diligence on the part of the movant; (3) that the evidence is material to the issue of the appellant's guilt; (4) that the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (5) that the evidence would probably change the outcome if a new trial was granted."”

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