Reeves v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015, 1021 (Ala.1993), our supreme court stated: "`The right of a criminal defendant to testify at his own trial is fundamental and personal to the defendant. Nichols v. Butler, 953 F.2d 1550, 1552 (11th Cir.1992); Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987). "It is basic that every person has the right in all criminal prosecutions to be heard by himself and counsel, or either ... to testify in his own behalf, if he elects to so do." Carter v. State, 424 So.2d 1336, 1340 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (citations omitted). A criminal defendant's decision not to testify in his own behalf must be made knowingly and voluntarily. Streeter v. State, 406 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Streeter, 406 So.2d 1029 (Ala. 1981), cert. denied, Streeter v. Alabama, 456 U.S. 932 , 102 S.Ct. 1984 , 72 L.Ed.2d 450 (1982).' " See also Carter v. State, 424 So.2d 1336 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (holding that the appellant did not prove that he was denied the right to testify where the evidence showed that he made the decision not to testify on his own behalf after conferring with friends and his attorney); Streeter v. State, 406 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) (holding that neither trial counsel nor the trial court interfered and that the appellant knowingly and voluntarily made the decision not to testify on his own behalf). "We agree with the reasoning and holding of [ United States v. ] Teague [, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir.1992) ]. A de”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ex Parte Barnett

2. “We agree with the reasoning and holding of [ United States v. ] Teague [, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir.1992) ]. A defendant has a fundamental right to testify on his own behalf, that right is personal to the defendant, and defense counsel may not waive that right. See El-Tabech v. Hopkins, 997 F.2d 386 (8th Cir.1993); Hernandez v. Dugger, 829 F.Supp. 372 (M.D.Fla.1992).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ex Parte Barnett

3. “In Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015, 1021 (Ala.1993), our supreme court stated:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ex Parte Barnett