889 So. 2d 623 - Lewis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' "In judging a prosecutor's closing argument, the standard is whether the argument 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction [or sentence] a denial of due process.' " Bankhead [v. State ] , 585 So.2d [97,] 107 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1989),] quoting Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168 , 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 2471, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo , 416 U.S. 637 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974) ). "A prosecutor's statement must be viewed in the context of all of the evidence presented and in the context of the complete closing arguments to the jury.”

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Foye v. State · Lockhart v. State

2. “"`"inconclusive facts and circumstances tending prima facie to show the corpus delicti may be aided by the admissions or confession of the accused so as to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and so to support a conviction, although such facts and circumstances, standing alone, would not thus satisfy the jury of the existence of the corpus delicti."' " Bush [v. State], 695 So.2d [70 ,] 117-18 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala. 1997)], quoting Bridges v. State, 284 Ala. 412 , 417 , 225 So.2d 821 , 826 (1969); see also Bracewell, 506 So.2d at 360 ; Spear, 508 So.2d at 308 . `While a confession is inadmissible as prima facie proof of the corpus delicti, it can be used along with other evidence to satisfy the jury of the existence of the corpus delicti.' Bracewell, supra at 360 ; see also Howell [v. State], 571 So.2d [396 ,] 397 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1990)]."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tinker v. State · 952 So. 2d 393 - Barber v. State

3. “"[A] defendant, to be considered mentally retarded, must have significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ of 70 or below), and significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior. Additionally, these problems must have manifested themselves during the developmental period (i.e., before the defendant reached age 18)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yeomans v. State · 928 So. 2d 315 - Morrow v. State