925 So. 2d 245 - Duncan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 19 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Both appellants argue that the admission of identification testimony violated their rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under Alabama law. Specifically, both appellants contend that Libby Barron’s in-court identification of them was unreliable because of unduly suggestive pretrial procedures. The appellants contend that their photographs, used in the array for pretrial identification, were ‘out of focus’ when compared to the other photographs in the array. The appellants failed to object on this specific ground at trial or in their motion to suppress and raised only the general issue that the pretrial identification was ‘unduly suggestive’ in the motion for new trial. The issue of the photograph’s clarity is raised for the first time on appeal and therefore must rise to the level of plain error to require reversal. Rule 45A, [Ala.] R.App. P. “The record indicates that a hearing was held on the appellants’ motion to suppress any in-court identifications by witnesses because these witnesses were subjected to improper out-of-court identification procedures. At the hearing, a sergeant with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department testified that he showed Libby Barron, the victim’s widow, a set of five photographs and that she selected the appellants’ photographs as the men who had killed her husband. Libby Barron also testified to her identification and, during trial, the photographs from the photographic lineup ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Musgrove v. State

2. “"This claim is dismissed because it is not sufficiently specific. Ala.R.Crim.P. 32.6(b). McNabb makes merely a bare allegation that a mitigation expert's `testimony would have fit perfectly with trial counsel's theory of defense — namely cocaine intoxication.' (Pet. at p. 18.) He has not offered in his petition to what the mitigation expert would have testified or how he would have aided the defense strategy. McNabb's only attempt to allege how a mitigation expert would have aided his defense is his statement that the mitigation expert would have aided in presenting four general characteristics on McNabb's background — academic history, behavioral history, emotional history, and substance abuse history. (Pet. 16.) These general allegations, however, fail to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 32.6(b) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, McNabb's allegation that trial counsel failed to properly utilize Stanley Brodsky is not pleaded to the specificity required by Rule 32.6(b) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the petition states that Stanley Brodsky is a `Ph.D.,' it does not state what field or specialty his `Ph.D.' supports or how he qualifies to be a `mitigation expert.' Additionally, McNabb has failed to allege what information Brodsky, or any other mitigation expert, would have uncovered had he been contacted early in the investigation. Finally, he has not pleaded how Brodsky's, or any other mitigation expert's, testimony would ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 991 So. 2d 313 - McNabb v. State

3. “`certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.'”

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