14 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Terry Ray Uptaingreen2 sentences1990In Hicks , this court recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: "`[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which the testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. 63 1989In Hicks this Court recently enunicated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: “ ‘ “[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony.” | 4 | 9 |
Howard L. Dickerson v. State of Alabamagreen2 sentences1990In Hicks , this court recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: "`[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which the testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. 63 1989In Hicks this Court recently enunicated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: “ ‘ “[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony.” | 3 | 7 |
Dale v. Stategreen2 sentences1986In Hicks this Court recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: "[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. " 63 1985These factors are: "[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony." Dale , supra. It is unnecessary for this court to discuss the appellant's case in relation to these factors due to our decision on this matter. | 3 | 5 |
Barton v. Stategreen2 sentences1990In Hicks , this court recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: "`[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which the testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. 63 1989In Hicks this Court recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: "[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which the testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. 633 F | 3 | 4 |
Odell Aaron Hicks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Floridagreen2 sentences1990In Hicks , this court recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: "`[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which the testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. 63 1989In Hicks this Court recently enunicated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: “ ‘ “[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony.” | 1 | 8 |
Boyd v. Stategreen1 sentence2014P., this Court has held: “ ‘Rule 32.6(b) requires that the petition itself disclose the facts relied upon in seeking relief.’ Boyd v. State, 746 So.2d 364, 406 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
McNabb v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See also McNabb v. State, 991 So.2d 313, 335 (Ala.Crim.App.2007)(This court may sua sponte apply the specificity requirement contained in Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. Stategreen1 sentence1990In Hicks , this court recently enunciated several factors which are to be considered in determining whether an accused was deprived of his right to compulsory process by a denial of a motion for continuance: "`[T]he diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which the testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. 63 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Firth v. State
green
2 sentences1989See also Dale v. State, 466 So.2d 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1985); Firth v. State, 493 So.2d 397 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).” Barton v. State, 494 So.2d 943, 948-949 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). 1987See also Dale v. State , 466 So.2d 196 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); Firth v. State , 493 So.2d 397 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986)." It is clear that the appellant has not made the requisite showing in order to prove that he was deprived of his right to compulsory process as a result of a denial of his motion for continuance. | 3 | 1986–1989 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences1991I would simply hold that the proper standard is one of reasonable probability. . . ." *Page 1221 Id. at 685 , 105 S.Ct. at 3385 . 1991I would simply hold that the proper standard is one of reasonable probability. . . ." *Page 1221 Id. at 685 , 105 S.Ct. at 3385 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
green
2 sentences1991This interpretation is further supported by Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 , 57 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 1001 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987), which states: "Although courts have used different terminologies to define 'materiality,' a majority of this court has agreed , '[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 1991This interpretation is further supported by Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 , 57 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 1001 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987), which states: "Although courts have used different terminologies to define 'materiality,' a majority of this court has agreed , '[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. James Robert Dorsey, United States of America v. Faye Margaret Crawford A/K/A Faye Margaret Powell
green
1 sentence1985"Because no investigation had, nor reasonably should have, apprised the police of the dwelling's multi-residence character, the `entire premises' warrant met the specificity requirement under the Fourth Amendment." Dorsey, 591 F.2d at 930 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Maulding
green
1 sentence1985Even if "additional investigation might have produced additional facts, ... the Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness, not certainty." Maulding, 564 P.2d at 730 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.