14 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duncan v. Stategreen2 sentences1998If the confession is held voluntary and admitted, the jury's consideration of that confession and surrounding circumstances shall proceed in accordance with the `Orthodox' procedure, that is, the jury considers the voluntariness as affecting the weight or credibility of the confession." Duncan v. State , 278 Ala. at 165 , 176 So.2d at 859 . 1998If the confession is held voluntary and admitted, the jury's consideration of that confession and surrounding circumstances shall proceed in accordance with the `Orthodox' procedure, that is, the jury considers the voluntariness as affecting the weight or credibility of the confession." Duncan v. State , 278 Ala. at 165 , 176 So.2d at 859 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Rushgreen2 sentences2014“Counsel is given wide latitude and has the right and duty to cross-examine vigorously a defendant who takes the stand in his own defense. ‘A [prosecutor] may ask a defendant ... questions tending to discredit [his] testimony, no matter how disparaging the question may be.’ ” State v. Rush, 340 N.C. 174, 186 , 456 S.E.2d 819, 826 (1995). 2014“Counsel is given wide latitude and has the right and duty to cross-examine vigorously a defendant who takes the stand in his own defense. ‘A [prosecutor] may ask a defendant ... questions tending to discredit [his] testimony, no matter how disparaging the question may be.’ ” State v. Rush, 340 N.C. 174, 186 , 456 S.E.2d 819, 826 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Archie D. Wright v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2007The decision to take the stand in his own defense, like the decision to plead not-guilty and proceed to trial, provides the defendant with an opportunity directly to meet the charges against him. `The wisdom or unwisdom of the defendant's choice does not diminish his right to make it.' Wright , 572 F.2d at 1079 (Godbold, J., dissenting). 2007The decision to take the stand in his own defense, like the decision to plead not-guilty and proceed to trial, provides the defendant with an opportunity directly to meet the charges against him. `The wisdom or unwisdom of the defendant's choice does not diminish his right to make it.' Wright, 572 F.2d at 1079 (Godbold, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Houston v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Certainly the Court's holding in Houston v. State , 354 So.2d 825 , 828 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977), contemplates that a defendant can retain his right to remain silent at arrest, even if he takes the stand in his own defense: "Not only is the prosecutor forbidden to use as evidence of substantive guilt the fact of defendant's silence following his arrest and Miranda warnings but the state may not constitutionally impeach a defendant's trial testimony with proof of post-arrest silence. 2005Certainly the Court's holding in Houston v. State, 354 So.2d 825, 828 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977), contemplates that a defendant can retain his right to remain silent at arrest, even if he takes the stand in his own defense: "Not only is the prosecutor forbidden to use as evidence of substantive guilt the fact of defendant's silence following his arrest and Miranda warnings but the state may not constitutionally impeach a defendant's trial testimony with proof of post-arrest silence. | 1 | 1 |
Waddle v. Stategreen1 sentence1986“Conflicting evidence always presents a jury question unless the evidence palpably fails to establish a prima facie case.” Waddle v. State, 473 So.2d 580, 582 (Ala. Cr.App.1985). “[W]hen it is shown that the driver of an automobile has been drinking it becomes a question for the jury to say, from all the facts and circumstances, whether or not the driver was under the influence of liquor.” Evans v. State, 36 Ala.App. 145, 146 , 53 So.2d 764 (1951). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Walker
green
2 sentences2004Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 597-98 , 16 S.Ct. 644, 647 , 40 L.Ed. 819 (1896); Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154-55 , 78 S.Ct. 622, 626-27 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958). 2004Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 597-98 , 16 S.Ct. 644, 647 , 40 L.Ed. 819 (1896); Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154-55 , 78 S.Ct. 622, 626-27 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958). | 2 | 1999–2004 |
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences2004Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 597-98 , 16 S.Ct. 644, 647 , 40 L.Ed. 819 (1896); Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154-55 , 78 S.Ct. 622, 626-27 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958). 2004Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 597-98 , 16 S.Ct. 644, 647 , 40 L.Ed. 819 (1896); Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154-55 , 78 S.Ct. 622, 626-27 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958). | 2 | 1999–2004 |
Boulden v. State
green
2 sentences1975Boulden v. State, 278 Ala. 437 , 179 So.2d 20 ; Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145 , 176 So.2d 840 . 1975Boulden v. State, 278 Ala. 437 , 179 So.2d 20 ; Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145 , 176 So.2d 840 . | 2 | 1974–1975 |
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2005Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 2244 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)." (Emphasis added.) 2005Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 2244 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)." (Emphasis added.) | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Edgar v. State
green
1 sentence2002(C.R. 43.) The State did not refute any of the allegations in the appellant's motion for a new trial and affidavit, and the trial court allowed the motion to be denied by operation of law. 1 In Edgar v. State , 646 So.2d 683 , 687 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed a similar situation as follows: "We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant's motion for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala.R.Crim.P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by ev | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jenkins v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1993The Court concluded "that the Fifth Amendment is not violated by the use of pre-arrest silence to impeach a criminal defendant's credibility." Id. at 238 , 100 S.Ct. at 2129 . 1993The Court concluded "that the Fifth Amendment is not violated by the use of pre-arrest silence to impeach a criminal defendant's credibility." Id. at 238 , 100 S.Ct. at 2129 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Evans v. State
neutral
2 sentences1986“Conflicting evidence always presents a jury question unless the evidence palpably fails to establish a prima facie case.” Waddle v. State, 473 So.2d 580, 582 (Ala. Cr.App.1985). “[W]hen it is shown that the driver of an automobile has been drinking it becomes a question for the jury to say, from all the facts and circumstances, whether or not the driver was under the influence of liquor.” Evans v. State, 36 Ala.App. 145, 146 , 53 So.2d 764 (1951). 1986“Conflicting evidence always presents a jury question unless the evidence palpably fails to establish a prima facie case.” Waddle v. State, 473 So.2d 580, 582 (Ala. Cr.App.1985). “[W]hen it is shown that the driver of an automobile has been drinking it becomes a question for the jury to say, from all the facts and circumstances, whether or not the driver was under the influence of liquor.” Evans v. State, 36 Ala.App. 145, 146 , 53 So.2d 764 (1951). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Raffel v. United States
green
2 sentences1982Raffel v. United States , 271 U.S. 494 , 46 S.Ct. 566 , 70 L.Ed. 1054 (1926). 1982Raffel v. United States , 271 U.S. 494 , 46 S.Ct. 566 , 70 L.Ed. 1054 (1926). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Chandler v. State
neutral
2 sentences1974Boulden v. State, 278 Ala. 437 , 179 So.2d 20 ; Chandler v. State, 283 Ala. 29 , 214 So.2d 306 ; Jones v. State, 50 Ala.App. 36 , 276 So.2d 621 . 1974Boulden v. State, 278 Ala. 437 , 179 So.2d 20 ; Chandler v. State, 283 Ala. 29 , 214 So.2d 306 ; Jones v. State, 50 Ala.App. 36 , 276 So.2d 621 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1974Boulden v. State, 278 Ala. 437 , 179 So.2d 20 ; Chandler v. State, 283 Ala. 29 , 214 So.2d 306 ; Jones v. State, 50 Ala.App. 36 , 276 So.2d 621 . 1974Boulden v. State, 278 Ala. 437 , 179 So.2d 20 ; Chandler v. State, 283 Ala. 29 , 214 So.2d 306 ; Jones v. State, 50 Ala.App. 36 , 276 So.2d 621 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Jackson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1972Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76 , 3 So. 847 ; White v. State, 260 Ala. 328 , 70 So.2d 624 , and the accused should be given the opportunity to present such testimony on voir dire, in the absence of the jury. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences1972By so doing, the defendant will not waive his right to decline to take the stand in his own defense on the trial in chief nor will he waive any of the other rights stemming from his choice not to testify. . . *133 The Supreme Court of Alabama in Duncan, supra, quoted with approval from the opinion in Taylor v. State, 42 Ala.App. 634 , 174 So.2d 795 , the following: “Before the voluntariness of the confession is determined by the trial court, the court should receive and hear any testimony offered by the accused tending to show that the confession was not made voluntarily. 1972By so doing, the defendant will not waive his right to decline to take the stand in his own defense on the trial in chief nor will he waive any of the other rights stemming from his choice not to testify. . . *133 The Supreme Court of Alabama in Duncan, supra, quoted with approval from the opinion in Taylor v. State, 42 Ala.App. 634 , 174 So.2d 795 , the following: “Before the voluntariness of the confession is determined by the trial court, the court should receive and hear any testimony offered by the accused tending to show that the confession was not made voluntarily. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
White v. State.
green
2 sentences1972Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76 , 3 So. 847 ; White v. State, 260 Ala. 328 , 70 So.2d 624 , and the accused should be given the opportunity to present such testimony on voir dire, in the absence of the jury. 1972Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76 , 3 So. 847 ; White v. State, 260 Ala. 328 , 70 So.2d 624 , and the accused should be given the opportunity to present such testimony on voir dire, in the absence of the jury. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.