87 So. 3d 607 - Sheffield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' " Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 (citations omitted). See Ex parte Lawley , 512 So.2d 1370 , 1372 (Ala. 1987). " ' " 'Even if an attorney's performance is determined to be deficient, the petitioner is not entitled to relief unless he establishes that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whited v. State · Whited v. State

2. ““ ‘It has been the rule in Alabama that the State must offer independent proof of the corpus delicti of the charged offense to authorize the admission of a defendant’s confession or inculpatory statement. Robinson v. State, 560 So.2d 1130, 1135-36 (Ala.Cr.App.1989); see C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, 200.13 (5th ed.1996). “ ‘The corpus delicti consists of two elements: “(1) That a certain result has been produced ... and (2) that some person is criminally responsible for the act.” ’ Johnson [v. State, 473 So.2d 607, 608 (Ala.Cr.App.1985)] (quoting C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 304.01 (3d ed.1977)).” Spear v. State, 508 So.2d 306, 308 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). “‘Positive, direct evidence of the corpus de-licti is not indispensable to the admissions of confessions.’” Bracewell v. State, 506 So.2d 354, 360 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), quoting Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94 , 14 So. 868 (1894). “The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence.” Sockwell v. State, 675 So.2d 4, 21 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 675 So.2d 38 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 838 , 117 S.Ct. 115 , 136 L.Ed.2d 67 (1996).’ “Maxwell v. State, 828 So.2d 347, 357 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). “ ‘ “ ‘Independent evidence of the corpus delicti need not be of such probative strength as that such evidence, standing alone, in the opinion of the trial or appellate court, would, ought to or probably would satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of the corpus delicti. Independent evidence of th”

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

3. “"[T]his Court has held that 'prior inconsistent statements of a witness may be used to impeach the credibility of the witness but, generally, may not be considered as substantive evidence.' Varner v. State , 497 So.2d 1135 , 1137 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). Furthermore, the trial court does not have a duty, sua sponte, to inform the jury that evidence of inconsistent statements may be considered only for the purpose of impeaching a witness's credibility. Varner ; Weaver v. State , 466 So.2d 1037 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). Instead, counsel must request any cautionary or limiting instructions. See Varner , supra. However, the decision not to request a limiting instruction is a matter of trial strategy and does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Jones v. State , 280 Ga. 205 , 207, 625 S.E.2d 1 , 3 (2005) ('[t]he decision of criminal defense counsel not to request limiting instructions is presumed to be strategic')."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 So. 3d 855 - Hutcherson v. State