green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Simmons v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the trial court told the jury that it could consider any evidence in mitigation but that mitigating circumstances had to be based on the evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Frazier v. State
or plain error to exist in the batson context, the record must raise an inference that the state . . . engaged in purposeful discrimination' in the exercise of its peremptory challenges.
discussed
Cited "see"
Stallworth v. State
See 501 U.S. at 830, n. 2 ."' " Arthur v. State, 711 So.2d 1031, 1093 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 711 So.2d 1097 (Ala.1997), quoting Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999, 1006-07 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Jackson v. State
See Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995); Smith v. State, 756 So.2d 892 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 756 So.2d 957 (Ala.2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Jackson v. State
See Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995); Smith v. State, 756 So.2d 892 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 756 So.2d 957 (Ala.2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Whitehead v. State
See 501 U.S. at 830, n. 2 [111 S.Ct. at 2611, n. 2].'" Arthur v. State, 711 So.2d 1031, 1093 (Ala. Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 711 So.2d 1097 (Ala. 1997), quoting Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999, 1006-07 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Dunaway
(2×)
See Rieber v. State, 663 So.2d 985, 992-93 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), aff'd, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Sneed v. State
See Ex parte Reiber , 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Maples v. State
See Rieber v. State, 663 So.2d 985 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995); Cowart, 579 So.2d at 4-5 (Ala.Cr.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gore
Ed. 2d 543 (2001); see also Ex parte Rieber, 663 So. 2d 999 , 1011–12 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S. Ct. 531 , 133 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gore
Ed. 2d 543 (2001); see also Ex parte Rieber, 663 So. 2d 999 , 1011–12 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S. Ct. 531 , 133 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gore
Ed. 2d 543 (2001); see also Ex parte Rieber, 663 So. 2d 999 , 1011–12 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S. Ct. 531 , 133 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Vasquez, J.
Compare Commonwealth v. Santiago, 654 A.2d 1062, 1082 (Pa.Super. 1994) (“Santiago II”), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 651 , 664 A.2d 540 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 532 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995) (explaining statement of Commonwealth witness in pre-polygraph interview, that witness had not seen defendant with gun prior to victim’s murder, was contrary to witness’ testimony at appellant’s trial; statement, therefore, was relevant to enable defense to impeach testimony of key Commonwealth witness; nevertheless, witness’ pre-polygraph interview statement was ________________…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. State
See also Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995).'" Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856, 902 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 777 So.2d 935 (Ala. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1097 , 121 S.Ct. 826 , 148 L.Ed.2d 709 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Freeman v. State
McLoyd v. State, 390 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). [[Image here]] “The trial court was correct in overruling the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of the contents of the apartment where the appellant was living with a cotenant who gave his consent to the search of the apartment.” 615 So.2d at 1214A15. “[T]he authority of a third person to consent to a search turns on whether the third person and the defendant ‘mutually used the property searched and had joint access to and control of it for most purposes so that it is reasonable to recognize that either user had the right…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Freeman v. State
"The trial court was correct in overruling the appellant's motion to suppress evidence of the contents of the apartment where the appellant was living with a cotenant who gave his consent to the search of the apartment." 615 So.2d at 1214-15. "[T]he authority of a third person to consent to a search turns on whether the third person and the defendant `mutually used the property searched and had joint access to and control of it for most purposes so that it is reasonable to *180 recognize that either user had the right to permit inspection of the property and that the complaining co-user had as…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Borden v. State
See also Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999, 1002 (Ala.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Price v. State
See also Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.1995), cert.denied, 516 U.S. 995 , 116 S.Ct. 531 , 133 L.Ed.2d 437 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brinkley
v.
Skjonsberg
v.
Skjonsberg
No. 95-6171.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 27, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of A… (2)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.