Taylor claim in Alabama

2018(Taylor's brief, p. 9.) "In Hollins v. State , 737 So.2d 1056 , 1057 (Ala. Crim.

2018(Taylor's brief, p. 9.) "In Hollins v. State , 737 So.2d 1056 , 1057 (Ala. Crim.

2004See White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).

2004See White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).

2004See White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).

2002See White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).

2004See White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).

2002See White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992); Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affirmed, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991).

2004The Supreme Court rejected Taylor's claim and held that the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the circuit court accurately informed the jury as to the extent of its sentencing authority, namely, that a sentence verdict is advisory and a recommendation to the court, which would make the final decision as to the defendant's sentence, and were not constitutionally impermissible: "It is well established that `the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the trial court accurately informing the jury of the extent of its sentencing authority and that its sentence verdict w

2002The Supreme Court rejected Taylor’s claim and held that the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the circuit court accurately informed the jury as to the extent of its sentencing authority, namely, that a sentence verdict is advisory and a recommendation to the court, which would make the final decision as to the defendant’s sentence, and were not constitutionally impermissible: “It is well established that ‘the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the trial court accurately informing the jury of the extent of its sentencing authority and that its sentence verdict w

2004The Supreme Court rejected Taylor's claim and held that the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the circuit court accurately informed the jury as to the extent of its sentencing authority, namely, that a sentence verdict is advisory and a recommendation to the court, which would make the final decision as to the defendant's sentence, and were not constitutionally impermissible: "It is well established that `the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the trial court accurately informing the jury of the extent of its sentencing authority and that its sentence verdict w

2002The Supreme Court rejected Taylor’s claim and held that the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the circuit court accurately informed the jury as to the extent of its sentencing authority, namely, that a sentence verdict is advisory and a recommendation to the court, which would make the final decision as to the defendant’s sentence, and were not constitutionally impermissible: “It is well established that ‘the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the trial court accurately informing the jury of the extent of its sentencing authority and that its sentence verdict w

2004The Supreme Court rejected Taylor's claim and held that the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the circuit court accurately informed the jury as to the extent of its sentencing authority, namely, that a sentence verdict is advisory and a recommendation to the court, which would make the final decision as to the defendant's sentence, and were not constitutionally impermissible: "It is well established that `the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the trial court accurately informing the jury of the extent of its sentencing authority and that its sentence verdict w

2002The Supreme Court rejected Taylor’s claim and held that the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the circuit court accurately informed the jury as to the extent of its sentencing authority, namely, that a sentence verdict is advisory and a recommendation to the court, which would make the final decision as to the defendant’s sentence, and were not constitutionally impermissible: “It is well established that ‘the comments of the prosecutor and the instructions of the trial court accurately informing the jury of the extent of its sentencing authority and that its sentence verdict w

2003“This court noted in a footnote in Taylor : “ “While Ex parte Helton [ 578 So.2d 1379 (Ala.1990)] implies that the requirement that the trial court state the reasons and the evidence relied upon for revocation is not waivable because of the lack of an objection, the Alabama Supreme Court neither specifically addressed preservation, nor extended its holding to other Armstrong requirements, which are now embodied in Rules 27.5 and 27.6.

1996This court noted in a footnote in Taylor : "While Ex parte Helton [ 578 So.2d 1379 (Ala. 1990)] implies that the requirement that the trial court state the reasons and the evidence relied upon for revocation is not waivable because of the lack of an objection, the Alabama Supreme Court neither specifically addressed preservation, nor extended its holding to other Armstrong requirements, which are now embodied in Rules 27.5 and 27.6.

1999We conclude, however, that the prosecutor's comment was a fair response to defense counsel's statement made immediately before, by which defense counsel argued to the jury that a recommendation of death would kill both Michael Taylor and his mother. `[A] prosecutor has the right to "reply in kind" to statements made by defense counsel in the defense's closing argument.' Ex parte Musgrove, 638 So.2d 1360, 1369 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, Rogers v. Alabama, [513] U.S. [845], 115 S.Ct. 136 , 130 L.Ed.2d 78 (1994).

1995We conclude, however, that the prosecutor's comment was a fair response to defense counsel's statement made immediately before, by which defense counsel argued to the jury that a recommendation of death would kill both Michael Taylor and his mother. "[A] prosecutor has the right to 'reply in kind' to statements made by defense counsel in the defense's closing argument." Ex parte Musgrove , 638 So.2d 1360 , 1369 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, Rogers v. Alabama , ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 136 , 130 L.Ed.2d 78 (1994).

2017In Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church , 847 So.2d 331 (Ala. 2002), this Court stated: " '[T]he civil courts of this state have taken jurisdiction of disputes between factions of Baptist churches or of churches similarly governed on the ground that property or civil rights were involved.' This case began as one involving the finances, financial assets, and business of the Church, not any of its purely ecclesiastical or spiritual features, and those financial and business aspects of the Church have remained center stage throughout." 847 So.2d at 336 (quoting Williams , 258 Ala. at 62 ,

2017In Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church , 847 So.2d 331 (Ala. 2002), this Court stated: " '[T]he civil courts of this state have taken jurisdiction of disputes between factions of Baptist churches or of churches similarly governed on the ground that property or civil rights were involved.' This case began as one involving the finances, financial assets, and business of the Church, not any of its purely ecclesiastical or spiritual features, and those financial and business aspects of the Church have remained center stage throughout." 847 So.2d at 336 (quoting Williams , 258 Ala. at 62 ,

2017In Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church , 847 So.2d 331 (Ala. 2002), this Court stated: " '[T]he civil courts of this state have taken jurisdiction of disputes between factions of Baptist churches or of churches similarly governed on the ground that property or civil rights were involved.' This case began as one involving the finances, financial assets, and business of the Church, not any of its purely ecclesiastical or spiritual features, and those financial and business aspects of the Church have remained center stage throughout." 847 So.2d at 336 (quoting Williams , 258 Ala. at 62 ,

2017In Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church , 847 So.2d 331 (Ala. 2002), this Court stated: " '[T]he civil courts of this state have taken jurisdiction of disputes between factions of Baptist churches or of churches similarly governed on the ground that property or civil rights were involved.' This case began as one involving the finances, financial assets, and business of the Church, not any of its purely ecclesiastical or spiritual features, and those financial and business aspects of the Church have remained center stage throughout." 847 So.2d at 336 (quoting Williams , 258 Ala. at 62 ,

2011After considering Taylor’s petition for a writ of mandamus to review the trial court’s ruling, this Court denied the petition and held: “The prosecutor stated that she did not know about the tape and that she believed that the police officers did not tell her about it because they did not think it would be useful — ‘you can’t make out any voices or words.’ Judge Bahakel, when granting the motion for a mistrial, stated, T don’t really fault the prosecutors in this particular case; they’re good attorneys, and I think they’re diligent attorneys.’ We also note that codefen-dant Brown’s attorney ob

2010(C. 940-946.) Claim VLB alleges grounds for relief and the underlying facts.” (Taylor’s brief, at p. 57.) “Claim VII.D alleges that the State apparently failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

2009Lifestar argues that based on Boyd Brothers Transportation Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Cos., 729 F.2d 1407 (11th Cir.1984), an attorney retained by an in *214 surance company to defend the company’s insured is not an independent contractor and, therefore, that Admiral is responsible for the Taylor defendants’ allegedly negligent and/or wanton defense.

2001The Court finds that the aggravating [circumstance] outweigh[s] any mitigating circumstances when the jury recommendation of life without parole is taken into consideration." (C.R. at 247-48; C.R. on remand at 6-7.) This order does not satisfy the Taylor requirement, announced after the trial *Page 828 judge had entered his order on remand, that "the trial judge must state specific reasons for giving the jury's recommendation the consideration he gave it." 808 So.2d at 1219 .

2001The Court finds that the aggravating [circumstance] outweigh[s] any mitigating circumstances when the jury recommendation of life without parole is taken into consideration." (C.R. at 247-48; C.R. on remand at 6-7.) This order does not satisfy the Taylor requirement, announced after the trial *828 judge had entered his order on remand, that "the trial judge must state specific reasons for giving the jury's recommendation the consideration he gave it." 808 So.2d at 1219 .

2000Melson v. State, 775 So.2d 857 (Ala.Cr.

1988Co. , 394 So.2d 933 (Ala. 1981).