Pierce v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Because the same attorney represented the appellant during the circuit court proceedings concerning, and on appeal from the denial of, the appellant’s Rule 32 petition, she should be aware of what occurred during those proceedings. Thus, the appellant has the burden of showing that the incomplete record caused him prejudice. He has not satisfied that burden. “First, the appellant contends that the record is incomplete and unreliable because certain motions and discussions that occurred at the end of the Rule 32 hearing were not transcribed by the court reporter. In response to one of the appellant’s motions to supplement, the circuit court conducted a hearing at which the court, defense counsel, and counsel for the State attempted to reconstruct the missing portions of the transcript. From the record before us, it appears that the parties did an admirable job of reconstructing the discussion. Defense counsel contends that the record on appeal remains unreliable because the record of these communications is not ‘accurate.’ However, counsel does not point out specifically how the record is not accurate. Counsel also contends that ‘[ijmportant appellate issues were included in this discussion, and complete review is not possible without a transcript.’ Again, however, counsel does not specify which important appellate issues were included in those discussions. Further, in the appellant’s brief to this court, counsel does not appear to raise any issues concerning things that shou”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Bush v. State · 913 So. 2d 460 - Hamm v. State

2. “"At the outset, we hold that [Pierce] has not satisfied his burden of proving that the alleged improper contacts between Whittle and the jury constitute newly discovered evidence. Therefore, *Page 625 the circuit court correctly found that [Pierce's] claim concerning Whittle's alleged improper contact with jurors was procedurally barred because [Pierce] could have raised it at trial or on appeal but did not. Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala.R.Crim.P. "With regard to newly discovered evidence, Rule 32.1(e), Ala.R.Crim.P., provides: "`(e)Newly discovered material facts exist which require that the conviction or sentence be vacated by the court, because: "`(1) The facts relied upon were not known by petitioner or petitioner's counsel at the time of trial or sentencing or in time to file a post-trial motion pursuant to Rule 24, or in time to be included in any previous collateral proceeding and could not have been discovered by any of those times through the exercise of reasonable diligence; "`(2) The facts are not merely cumulative to other facts that were known; "`(3) The facts do not merely amount to impeachment evidence; "`(4) If the facts had been known at the time of trial or of sentencing, the result probably would have been different; and "`(5) The facts establish that petitioner is innocent of the crime for which the petitioner was convicted or should not have received the sentence that petitioner received.' "When filing a petition for post-conviction relief, `[t]he petition”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Pierce · Ex Parte Pierce

3. “`it would be blinking reality not to recognize the extreme prejudice *Page 621 inherent in [the] continual association throughout the trial between the jurors and . . . key witnesses for the prosecution.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex Parte Pierce · Hunt v. State