defendant is not entitled to the general disclosure of the criminal records of the state’s witnesses
- Doster v. State, 72 So. 3d 50 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).published(defendant is not entitled to the general disclosure of the criminal records of the state’s witnesses)
- Billups v. State, 86 So. 3d 1032 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).published(defendant is not entitled to the general disclosure of the criminal records of the state’s witnesses)
- Brown v. State, 982 So. 2d 565 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).published (defendant is not entitled to the general disclosure of the criminal records of the state's witnesses)
- Dorsey v. State, 881 So. 2d 460 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).published (defendant is not entitled to the general disclosure of the criminal records of the state's witnesses)
- Arthur v. State, 711 So. 2d 1031 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).published (defendant is not entitled to the general disclosure of the criminal records of the state's witnesses)
Other citing cases
- Phillips v. State, 65 So. 3d 971 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).published
- Dotch v. State, 67 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).published
- State v. Locker, Unpublished Decision (5-13-2002), No. CA2001-07-163, 2002 WL 975226 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. May 13, 2002).unpublished
- State v. Wyke, Unpublished Decision (9-21-1999), No. 98AP-1084 and 98AP-1085 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Sept. 21, 1999).unpublished
- State v. Landrum, Unpublished Decision (1-11-1999), No. 98 CA 2401, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 71 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. Jan. 11, 1999).unpublished
- Burgess v. State, 811 So. 2d 557 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998).published
- State v. Monroe, 711 A.2d 878 (N.H. 1998).published
- State v. Ryan, 534 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 1995).published
- Whitman v. Ventetuolo, No. 93-1902 (1st Cir. June 8, 1994).unpublished
- State Ex Rel. Brown v. Dietrick, 444 S.E.2d 47 (W. Va. 1994).published
Show 8 more citing cases
- Thompson v. State, 153 So. 3d 84 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).published
- Brown v. State, 11 So. 3d 866 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).published
- State v. Stallworth, 941 So. 2d 327 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).published
- Jackson v. State, 910 So. 2d 797 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).published
- Ex Parte MacK, 894 So. 2d 764 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).published
- State v. Mack, 894 So. 2d 764 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).published
- Parris v. State, 885 So. 2d 813 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).published
- Reeves v. Hopkins, 871 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Neb. 1994).published
v.
Nebraska Washington v. Arizona Davis v. Alabama Caldwell v. Tennessee Thomas v. Illinois Landrum v. Ohio Williams v. Armontrout, Warden
Lead Opinion
Sup. Ct. Neb.;
Sup. Ct. Ariz.;
Sup. Ct. Ala.;
Sup. Ct. Tenn.;
Sup. Ct. Ill.;
Sup. Ct. Ohio; and
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 90-6259, 235 Neb. 770, 457 N. W. 2d 431; No. 90-6578, 165 Ariz. 51, 796 P. 2d 853; No. 90-6639, 554 So. 2d 1111; No. 90-6682, 137 Ill. 2d 500, 561 N. E. 2d 57; No. 90-6711, 53 Ohio St. 3d 107, 559 N. E. 2d 710; No. 90-6739, 912 F. 2d 924.
Dissent
dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.