Ex Parte Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' Rule 32.1(a) is the ... provision that allows a defendant to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a postconviction proceeding.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Flowers · Jenkins v. State

2. “"On December 2, 1994, Pierce filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. The trial court dismissed several claims, finding that they were procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a)(2), (3), (4), and (5), Ala.R.Crim.P. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Pierce relief on all of his remaining claims. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Pierce v. State , [March 2, 1999] 851 So.2d 558 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). "This Court granted Pierce's petition for certiorari review, to examine one of Pierce's four claims — that Sheriff Douglas Whittle had been a key witness for the prosecution and that he had improperly had close and continual contact with the jury throughout the trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this issue was procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5) because it was not raised at trial or on direct appeal, and it further held the claim to be without merit. We reverse and remand."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Pierce · Beckworth v. State

3. “[b]ased on the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion in [State v.] Freeman , [ 605 So.2d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992)], Pierce's claim [of juror misconduct] was cognizable [in a Rule 32 petition] as long as he established that the information was not known, and could not reasonably have been discovered, at trial or in time to raise the issue in a motion for new trial or on appeal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jenkins v. State · Ex Parte Burgess