Waldrop v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`". . . As for the appellant's statement to the police, the appellant's counsel could have discovered from the appellant himself the fact that the appellant had given a statement. Thus, the appellant could have obtained all of the evidence in question by exercising due diligence. `There is no Brady violation where the information in question could have been obtained by the defense through its own efforts.' Johnson , 612 So.2d at 1294 ; see also Jackson v. State , 674 So.2d 1318 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala. 1995). `"Evidence is not `suppressed' if the defendant either knew . . . or should have known . . . of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence." United States v. LeRoy , 687 F.2d 610 , 618 (2d Cir. 1982)[, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1174 , 103 S.Ct. 823 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983)].' Carr v. State , 505 So.2d 1294 , 1297 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987) (noting, `The statement the appellant contends was suppressed in this case was his own, and no reason was set forth to explain why he should not have been aware of it.') Where there is no suppression of evidence, there is no Brady violation. Carr , 505 So.2d at 1297 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 938 - Flowers v. State · 955 So. 2d 1037 - Adams v. State

2. “"Testimony presented at trial indicated that Waldrop and his wife Clara Waldrop resided with Waldrop's grandparents, Sherrell and Irene Prestridge. Sherrell had heart and hip problems and had difficulty walking. Irene was bedridden and blind and suffered from diabetes. Because of Sherrell's and Irene's infirmities, the living room of their house had been converted into a bedroom with two hospital beds where they slept. Testimony indicated that Waldrop knew that Sherrell and Irene received their Social Security checks on the first and the third of each month. "At some time between 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on April 5, 1998, Waldrop and Clara left the Prestridge's house and checked into a hotel in Anniston. At 1:00 p.m. that same day, Clara and Waldrop pawned Sherrell's lawn mower. That afternoon Waldrop smoked an undetermined amount of crack cocaine. "During the evening of April 5, Clara and Waldrop returned to the Prestridge's house. Testimony indicated that Waldrop was not high when he *Page 1189 returned to the house. While in his grandparents' bedroom, Waldrop and Sherrell began arguing about money. Waldrop stabbed Sherrell with a knife, and a scuffle ensued. Waldrop cut Sherrell's throat and attempted to choke him. Because Sherrell appeared to be breathing, Waldrop continued to stab Sherrell several times. In a statement Waldrop made to the police, which was introduced at trial, Waldrop stated that `[i]t looked like [Sherrell] was suffering.' (C. 182-84.) After Waldrop sta”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 987 So. 2d 1186 - Waldrop v. State

3. “"[Counsel]: Just for the record, Your Honor, Dr. Martha Loring is a licensed certified social worker with expertise in trauma and abuse who interviewed Bobby Waldrop, other informants, as well as reviewed records. And she would have testified about the severe and chronic violence in Bobby's household, the trauma that he underwent as a child and during the time of this offense, the neglect and rejection that he suffered as a child, acute crises that predate his cocaine abuse. "The Court: Acute? "[Counsel]: Acute crises including the loss of his child, the loss of his car, and also the arrest. "The Court: So you're saying . . . not to interrupt you. Because I know it's hard to sail when somebody takes the wind. But she would simply recite what testimony I've already heard from the actual witnesses? "[Counsel]: She would discuss that testimony, Your Honor, and then explain to the Court the significance of those events and those factors in Bobby's childhood. "The Court: All right. And Dr. Tarter? "[Counsel]: As to Dr. Tarter, Dr. Tarter is a clinical neuropsychologist [and has] reviewed records and interviewed other informants. He would be testifying with respect to statutory mitigating circumstances that Bobby suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense; namely, substance abuse disorder with dependency on cocaine and explain to the Court that that is a chronic *Page 1193 disease of the brain and a neuropsychiatric illness which would have had an effect on”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 987 So. 2d 1186 - Waldrop v. State