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.
13 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charles Lindgren v. Michael P. Lanegreen2 sentences2005Consequently, no Doyle violation occurred." 925 F.2d at 201 . 2005Consequently, no Doyle violation occurred." 925 F.2d at 201 . | 5 | 5 |
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Gaylene Laverne Stubbs, Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2011See Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 201 (7th Cir.1991).’ Stubbs, 944 F.2d at 835 . 2011See Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 201 (7th Cir.1991).’ Stubbs, 944 F.2d at 835 . | 5 | 5 |
Chuck Lee Mathenia v. Paul Delogreen2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 4 | 4 |
Porter v. Indianagreen2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 4 | 4 |
Savino v. Murraygreen2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 4 | 4 |
Houle v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 4 | 4 |
Tyreese Rowan v. Norman G. Owens, Superintendent, Indiana State Reformatory, Pendleton, Indianagreen2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 3 | 4 |
Mixon v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In Mixon v. State, 596 So.2d 605, 608 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), this court held that, for a Doyle violation to be harmless, “‘the State should prove 1) that the evidence of [the appellant’s] guilt was overwhelming and that his defense was transparently frivolous; 2) that the prosecution made only a single reference to [the appellant’s] silence and this reference was neither repeated nor linked with [the appellant’s] exculpatory testimony; and 3) that the trial court properly instructed the jury upon sustaining the defense’s objections. 2007In Mixon v. State, 596 So.2d 605, 608 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), this court held that, for a Doyle violation to be harmless, “‘the State should prove 1) that the evidence of [the appellant’s] guilt was overwhelming and that his defense was transparently frivolous; 2) that the prosecution made only a single reference to [the appellant’s] silence and this reference was neither repeated nor linked with [the appellant’s] exculpatory testimony; and 3) that the trial court properly instructed the jury upon sustaining the defense’s objections. | 2 | 2 |
Don Garriga Chapman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. 2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. | 2 | 2 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2015Regardless of the application of Doyle to the facts in this case, the United States Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), held that a Doyle violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 2015Regardless of the application of Doyle to the facts in this case, the United States Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), held that a Doyle violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 2 |
Qualls v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“The determination of whether a Doyle violation is harmless should be made on a case-by-case basis under the specific facts of each case.” Qualls v. State, 927 So.2d 852, 856 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). 2015“The determination of whether a Doyle violation is harmless should be made on a case-by-case basis under the specific facts of each case.” Qualls v. State, 927 So.2d 852, 856 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Masongreen2 sentences2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. 2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pruittgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bereisgreen2 sentences2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. 2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. | 1 | 1 |
Sobolewski v. Stategreen2 sentences2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. 2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Browngreen1 sentence2014Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d at 938 (holding that to constitute plain error, an error must have had an unfair, prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations (quoting Ex parte Bryant , 951 So.2d 724 , 727 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Hyde v. State , 778 So.2d 199 , 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) )). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grantgreen2 sentences2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. 2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. | 1 | 1 |
Beasley v. Stategreen2 sentences2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. 2014P.”), See also State v. Mason, 420 S.W.3d 632, 639-40 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“[0]ur review of the record convinces us that Defendant is not entitled to any relief because the [Doyle] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,”); State v. Grant, 105 So.3d 81, 88 (La.Ct.App.2012) (“A Doyle error is subject to a harmless error review.”); Beasley v. State, 74 So.3d 357, 362 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (“Even assuming a Doyle violation, the Supreme Court has held that any error in permitting a prosecutor to comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent is subject to harmless error review.”); Sobolewski v. | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Phillipsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilkerson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Myersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rowan v. Owens
green
2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 4 | 1996–2005 |
Turner v. Safley
green
2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 4 | 1996–2005 |
United States v. John Doe, Inc. I
green
2 sentences2005See also Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444 , 452 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens , 752 F.2d 1186 , 1190 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything els 2005See also Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444, 452 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 995 , 113 S.Ct. 1609 , 123 L.Ed.2d 170 (1993) (testimony by officer that defendant did not make a statement to him at the time of his arrest not a comment on defendant's post-arrest silence because the testimony was "`merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of [Mathenia's] videotaped statement'"); Rowan v. Owens, 752 F.2d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140 , 106 S.Ct. 2245 , 90 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986) (testimony by officers that defendant stated "he didn't want to say anything else" at | 4 | 1996–2005 |
Brecht v. Abrahamson
green
2 sentences2015Regardless of the application of Doyle to the facts in this case, the United States Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), held that a Doyle violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 2015Regardless of the application of Doyle to the facts in this case, the United States Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), held that a Doyle violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Adkins v. State
neutral
2 sentences2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. 2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Spanier v. United States
green
2 sentences2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. 2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Channel v. United States
green
2 sentences2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. 2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Houston v. State
green
2 sentences2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. 2007Houston v. State, supra, 354 So.2d at 829 (citing Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1250 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 908 , 97 S.Ct. 1705 , 52 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and Adkins v. State, 265 Ala. 666 , 93 So.2d 522 (1957)).’ “Although Mixon purports to set forth a three-pronged test for determining whether a Doyle violation is harmless, that standard is not appropriate in every case. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
cluster 471880
green
2 sentences1999The standard is strict; virtually any description of a defendant's silence following arrest and a Miranda warning will constitute a Doyle violation.' United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214 , 1243 (11th Cir.1986)." Ex parte Myers, 699 So.2d 1285, 1293 (Ala. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1054 , 118 S.Ct. 706 , 139 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998). 1999The standard is strict; virtually any description of a defendant's silence following arrest and a Miranda warning will constitute a Doyle violation.' United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214 , 1243 (11th Cir.1986)." Ex parte Myers, 699 So.2d 1285, 1293 (Ala. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1054 , 118 S.Ct. 706 , 139 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences2015This Court has applied the harmless-error analysis to a Doyle violation in the following death-penalty cases: Kelley v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0642, September 5, 2014] — So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Shaw v. State, 207 So.3d 79 (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 2015This Court has applied the harmless-error analysis to a Doyle violation in the following death-penalty cases: Kelley v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0642, September 5, 2014] — So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Shaw v. State, 207 So.3d 79 (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Shaw v. State
green
2 sentences2015This Court has applied the harmless-error analysis to a Doyle violation in the following death-penalty cases: Kelley v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0642, September 5, 2014] — So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Shaw v. State, 207 So.3d 79 (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 2015This Court has applied the harmless-error analysis to a Doyle violation in the following death-penalty cases: Kelley v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0642, September 5, 2014] — So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Shaw v. State, 207 So.3d 79 (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Arthur v. State
green
2 sentences2015This Court has applied the harmless-error analysis to a Doyle violation in the following death-penalty cases: Kelley v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0642, September 5, 2014] — So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Shaw v. State, 207 So.3d 79 (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 2015This Court has applied the harmless-error analysis to a Doyle violation in the following death-penalty cases: Kelley v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0642, September 5, 2014] — So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Shaw v. State, 207 So.3d 79 (Ala.Crim.App.2014); Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Ex Parte Bryant green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hyde v. State
green
1 sentence2014Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d at 938 (holding that to constitute plain error, an error must have had an unfair, prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations (quoting Ex parte Bryant , 951 So.2d 724 , 727 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Hyde v. State , 778 So.2d 199 , 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) )). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Anderson v. Charles green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Edwards v. Arizona green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Philpot v. Georgia green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Maloney v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board green | 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.