Moody v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 14 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. ““[Moody] pleaded no facts about the actual extent or nature of the media coverage that would indicate that it was biased or prejudicial or that it had saturated the community. In addition, he did not name a single juror who sat on his jury who had read or heard about the case. Contrary to Moody’s apparent belief, ‘the existence of widespread publicity does not require a change of venue.’ McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 211 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). Because Moody failed to allege sufficient facts in his petition that would indicate that he would have been entitled to a change of venue, he failed to plead sufficient facts to indicate that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising this claim on appeal. Therefore, summary dismissal of this claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was proper.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Yeomans v. State · Demetrius Avery Jackson, Jr. v. State of Alabama.

2. “"[i]f the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or that no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings ...."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 252 So. 3d 1108 - Knight v. State · 239 So. 3d 603 - Sharifi v. State

3. “Here, however, we do not hold that Moody could have, or should have, raised his claims of ineffective assistance of pretrial counsel for the first time on direct appeal. Rather, we hold only that Moody could have raised and fully litigated his claims of ineffective assistance of pretrial counsel in the correct forum, i.e., the trial court, by raising them before trial, during trial, or in a post-judgment motion for a new trial, and then, after being fully litigated in the trial court, those claims could have been pursued on direct appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 89 F. Supp. 3d 1167 - Moody v. Thomas