Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Dobynegreen2 sentences2011When reviewing a juror-misconduct claim, this Court applies the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1257 (Ala.2010): “In [Ex parte ] Dobyne, [ 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001),] this Court explained the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror’s failure to answer questions on voir dire truthfully: “ ‘The proper standard for determining whether juror misconduct warrants a new trial, as set out by this Court’s precedent, is whether the misconduct might have prejudiced, not whether it actually did prejudice, the defendant. 2009See also Bethea v. Springhill Mem’l Hosp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002) (juror visiting a crime scene is one example of extraneous information that may warrant postverdict investigation); and Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001) (some factors for resolving juror-misconduct allegations regarding voir dire include the remoteness of the matter inquired about, the materiality of the matter inquired about, the clarity of the questions asked, and the juror’s inadvertence or willfulness in failing to answer truthfully)- In Ex parte Burgess, 21 So.3d 746 (Ala. 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court held that | 4 | 9 |
Ex Parte Piercegreen2 sentences2011After noting that Jenkins failed to present any evidence indicating whether trial counsel knew of and thus could have raised the juror-misconduct claim earlier, this Court, applying the Alabama Supreme Court’s holding in Ex parte Pierce, 851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000), held that the claim was procedurally barred because it could have been, but was not, raised at trial or on appeal. 2008As we stated in Jenkins v. State, 972 So.2d 165, 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005) (on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court): “The Alabama Supreme Court in [Ex parte] Pierce, [ 851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000),] stated that in order for a juror-misconduct claim to be cognizable in a Rule 32 proceeding the petitioner must establish ‘that the information was not known, and could not reasonably have been discovered, at trial or in time to raise the issue in a motion for new trial or on appeal.’ Pierce, 851 So.2d at 616. | 2 | 11 |
Ex Parte Burgessgreen2 sentences2011Id. at 751 . 2009See also Bethea v. Springhill Mem’l Hosp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002) (juror visiting a crime scene is one example of extraneous information that may warrant postverdict investigation); and Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001) (some factors for resolving juror-misconduct allegations regarding voir dire include the remoteness of the matter inquired about, the materiality of the matter inquired about, the clarity of the questions asked, and the juror’s inadvertence or willfulness in failing to answer truthfully)- In Ex parte Burgess, 21 So.3d 746 (Ala. 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court held that | 1 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2008As we stated in Jenkins v. State, 972 So.2d 165, 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005) (on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court): “The Alabama Supreme Court in [Ex parte] Pierce, [ 851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000),] stated that in order for a juror-misconduct claim to be cognizable in a Rule 32 proceeding the petitioner must establish ‘that the information was not known, and could not reasonably have been discovered, at trial or in time to raise the issue in a motion for new trial or on appeal.’ Pierce, 851 So.2d at 616. 2007Jenkins failed to meet his burden under Rule 32.3, Ala.R.Crim.P." Jenkins v. State , 972 So.2d 165 , 167-68 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005) (on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court). | 1 | 2 |
Brownlee v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (“We will not review issues not listed and argued in brief.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte McCallgreen1 sentence2014Implicit in the Court’s reasoning in Yeomans is the principle that to the extent a circuit court, in denying a petition, relies on facts or evidence not included in the facts as alleged in the petition or in the petitioner’s trial-record or the record on direct appeal, the circuit court’s action in that regard is an “implicit! ] f[inding] that the issues presented [are] ‘material issue[s] of law or fact .,. which would entitle [the petitioner] to relief.’” Ex parte McCall, 30 So.3d 400, 404 (Ala.2008) (quoting Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Yeomans v. Stategreen2 sentences2013P., and either hold an evidentia-ry hearing on the juror-misconduct claim or, after giving notice to the parties of its intention to do so, take evidence by one of the alternative means listed in Rule 32.9(a).” Yeomans, 195 So.3d at 1051 . 2013See Yeomans v. State, 195 So.3d 1018 (Ala.Crim.App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Trohagreen1 sentence2011“A juror misconduct claim is cognizable where the misconduct ‘might have unlawfully influenced that juror and others with whom he deliberated, and might have unlawfully influenced its verdict rendered.’ Roan v. State [225 Ala.428], 143 So.2d 454, 460 (Ala.1932); Ex Parte Troha, 462 So.2d 953, 954 (Ala.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Kirkley v. Greengreen1 sentence2011“A juror misconduct claim is cognizable where the misconduct ‘might have unlawfully influenced that juror and others with whom he deliberated, and might have unlawfully influenced its verdict rendered.’ Roan v. State [225 Ala.428], 143 So.2d 454, 460 (Ala.1932); Ex Parte Troha, 462 So.2d 953, 954 (Ala.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Stewartgreen1 sentence2011See Ex parte Stewart, 659 So.2d 122 (Ala.1993).... | 1 | 1 |
Hodges v. Stategreen1 sentence2011P., because [it] could have been, but [was] not, raised on appeal.” Hodges v. State, 147 So.3d 916, 932 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Simmons v. State, 879 So.2d 1218, 1221 n. 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). . | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Jones v. State, 753 So.2d 1174, 1203 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (“[W]e find nothing to indicate that Jones’s trial counsel would have struck [the juror] had he known the information [the juror] revealed at the eviden-tiary hearing.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hosp.green1 sentence2009See also Bethea v. Springhill Mem’l Hosp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002) (juror visiting a crime scene is one example of extraneous information that may warrant postverdict investigation); and Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001) (some factors for resolving juror-misconduct allegations regarding voir dire include the remoteness of the matter inquired about, the materiality of the matter inquired about, the clarity of the questions asked, and the juror’s inadvertence or willfulness in failing to answer truthfully)- In Ex parte Burgess, 21 So.3d 746 (Ala. 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court held that | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2005See Ex parte Jenkins , 972 So.2d 159 (Ala. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
DeBruce v. Stategreen1 sentence2004(C. 1301-02; R. 525, 527, 1533.) We recently addressed similar issues in DeBruce v. State, 890 So.2d 1068, 1077-78 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), in which we stated: "When evaluating a juror-misconduct claim we apply the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Dobyne, [ 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001)]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Freeman
green
2 sentences2008In Ex parte Pierce , this Court held that "[b]ased on the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion in [State v.] Freeman , [ 605 So.2d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992)], Pierce's claim [of juror misconduct] was cognizable [in a Rule 32 petition] as long as he established that the information was not known, and could not reasonably have been discovered, at trial or in time to raise the issue in a motion for new trial or on appeal." 851 So.2d at 616 . 1999United States v. Perkins , 748 F.2d 1519 , 1529 (11th Cir. 1984); State v. Freeman , 605 So.2d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Clark v. State , 551 So.2d 1091 (Ala. 1989) (conviction reversed where one juror did not reveal during voir dire that he had previously served as juror in another case.)" After the trial court ordered that only the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim would be addressed at the hearing, Brown moved to reconsider the dismissal of the juror-misconduct claim and filed an amended petition. | 3 | 1999–2008 |
Bryant v. State
green
2 sentences2017This Court has recognized that "[i]n examining a juror-misconduct claim based on a juror's failure to answer questions truthfully, the phrasing of the exact question is critical." Bryant v. State , 181 So.3d 1087 , 1125 (Ala. Crim. 2017This Court has recognized that "[i]n examining a juror-misconduct claim based on a juror's failure to answer questions truthfully, the phrasing of the exact question is critical." Bryant v. State , 181 So.3d 1087 , 1125 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences2016The court stated: “In [State v.] Ross, [ 269 Conn. 213 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004),] our Supreme Court stated: ‘When an allegation is made ... that a venire panel has been tainted, voir dire itself provides a means to uncover bias. 2016The court stated: “In [State v.] Ross, [ 269 Conn. 213 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004),] our Supreme Court stated: ‘When an allegation is made ... that a venire panel has been tainted, voir dire itself provides a means to uncover bias. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Vazquez
green
2 sentences2016The Connecticut Court of Appeals in State v. Vazquez, 87 Conn.App. 792 , 867 A.2d 15 (2005), held, in deciding a juror-misconduct claim that occurred during voir dire, that the voir dire process itself was sufficient to uncover bias. 2016The Connecticut Court of Appeals in State v. Vazquez, 87 Conn.App. 792 , 867 A.2d 15 (2005), held, in deciding a juror-misconduct claim that occurred during voir dire, that the voir dire process itself was sufficient to uncover bias. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby
green
1 sentence2012A. Juror Misconduct The defendants initially contend that the trial court exceeded its discretion when it failed to grant a new trial on the ground that 9 of the 12 jurors seated in this case allegedly “suppressed material information about their personal litigation histories .... ” (Defendants’ brief, at p. 9.) The defendants argue that the allegedly suppressed information included the fact that six of the jurors were plaintiffs in prior, undisclosed litigation, which, the defendants argue, “led to the selection of a jury that was sympathetic to [Pettaway] and doubtless predisposed against De | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dixon v. State
green
1 sentence2011When reviewing a juror-misconduct claim, this Court applies the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1257 (Ala.2010): “In [Ex parte ] Dobyne, [ 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001),] this Court explained the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror’s failure to answer questions on voir dire truthfully: “ ‘The proper standard for determining whether juror misconduct warrants a new trial, as set out by this Court’s precedent, is whether the misconduct might have prejudiced, not whether it actually did prejudice, the defendant. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ex Parte Ingram
green
1 sentence2005McMILLAN, P.J., and COBB, BASCHAB, SHAW, and WISE, JJ., concur. 1 Alabama has yet to adopt legislation addressing the Atkins decision. 2 Perkins raises no issues in this mandamus petition related to the juror misconduct claim. 3 We note that when Perkins was tried the Ex parte Jackson , 598 So.2d 895 (Ala. 1992), overruled by Ex parte Ingram , 675 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1996), procedure was in place which allowed for appellate counsel to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a motion for a new trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte Jackson
red
1 sentence2005McMILLAN, P.J., and COBB, BASCHAB, SHAW, and WISE, JJ., concur. 1 Alabama has yet to adopt legislation addressing the Atkins decision. 2 Perkins raises no issues in this mandamus petition related to the juror misconduct claim. 3 We note that when Perkins was tried the Ex parte Jackson , 598 So.2d 895 (Ala. 1992), overruled by Ex parte Ingram , 675 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1996), procedure was in place which allowed for appellate counsel to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a motion for a new trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Jenkins v. State
green
1 sentence2005Relying on Charest v. State , 854 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the juror-misconduct claim presented in the amended petition would be considered timely only if it related back to a claim raised in the timely original petition; it concluded that Jenkins's original petition had included "no claim even remotely related to the venire members' failure to truthfully answer questions during voir dire examination." 972 So.2d at 121 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Charest v. State
green
1 sentence2005Relying on Charest v. State , 854 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the juror-misconduct claim presented in the amended petition would be considered timely only if it related back to a claim raised in the timely original petition; it concluded that Jenkins's original petition had included "no claim even remotely related to the venire members' failure to truthfully answer questions during voir dire examination." 972 So.2d at 121 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tomlin v. State
green
1 sentence2001The Court of Criminal Appeals applied the factors set out in Tomlin v. State , 695 So.2d 157 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), before concluding that the juror-misconduct claim was to be denied. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Roan v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Dawson , this Court applied the same standard that was advanced in Roan v. State , 225 Ala. 428 , 143 So. 454 (1932), namely, that in determining whether a new trial or a reversal is warranted because of juror misconduct (in this present case a juror's alleged failure to respond truthfully to a question during voir dire) the test is whether the defendant might have been prejudiced, not whether he actually was prejudiced, by such misconduct. 2001In Dawson , this Court applied the same standard that was advanced in Roan v. State , 225 Ala. 428 , 143 So. 454 (1932), namely, that in determining whether a new trial or a reversal is warranted because of juror misconduct (in this present case a juror's alleged failure to respond truthfully to a question during voir dire) the test is whether the defendant might have been prejudiced, not whether he actually was prejudiced, by such misconduct. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence1999United States v. Perkins , 748 F.2d 1519 , 1529 (11th Cir. 1984); State v. Freeman , 605 So.2d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Clark v. State , 551 So.2d 1091 (Ala. 1989) (conviction reversed where one juror did not reveal during voir dire that he had previously served as juror in another case.)" After the trial court ordered that only the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim would be addressed at the hearing, Brown moved to reconsider the dismissal of the juror-misconduct claim and filed an amended petition. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Paul C. Perkins
green
1 sentence1999United States v. Perkins , 748 F.2d 1519 , 1529 (11th Cir. 1984); State v. Freeman , 605 So.2d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Clark v. State , 551 So.2d 1091 (Ala. 1989) (conviction reversed where one juror did not reveal during voir dire that he had previously served as juror in another case.)" After the trial court ordered that only the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim would be addressed at the hearing, Brown moved to reconsider the dismissal of the juror-misconduct claim and filed an amended petition. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.