pre-trial suppression hearing in Alabama

7 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1982–1994 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Gannett Co. v. DePasqualegreen scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994See also Gannett Co v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. at 393 , 99 S.Ct. at 2912 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 629 -30 wherein the Court, in finding that the First and Fourteenth Amendment had not been violated by the closure of a pre-trial suppression hearing, emphasized that any denial of public access was only temporary, because once the danger of prejudice had dissipated, the trial court had made available a transcript of the suppression hearing; thus, the press and the public had a full opportunity to scrutinize the suppression hearing; and, therefore, unlike the case of an absolute ban on access, the press had t 1994See also Gannett Co v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. at 393 , 99 S.Ct. at 2912 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 629 -30 wherein the Court, in finding that the First and Fourteenth Amendment had not been violated by the closure of a pre-trial suppression hearing, emphasized that any denial of public access was only temporary, because once the danger of prejudice had dissipated, the trial court had made available a transcript of the suppression hearing; thus, the press and the public had a full opportunity to scrutinize the suppression hearing; and, therefore, unlike the case of an absolute ban on access, the press had t	1	1
Sullivan v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982See Sullivan v. State , 351 So.2d 659 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 665 (Ala. 1977).	1	1
Ex Parte Sullivangreen ala · 1977 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982See Sullivan v. State , 351 So.2d 659 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 665 (Ala. 1977).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Grey green minn · 1977 2 sentences 1994"In State v. Grey , 256 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. 1977), the court held that a pre-trial suppression hearing is an integral part of a criminal trial and that it violates the due process and confrontation clauses of the state and federal constitutions to conduct such a hearing, at which sworn testimony of prosecution witnesses is taken, in the absence of the defendant. 1994"In State v. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. 1977), the court held that a pre-trial suppression hearing is an integral part of a criminal trial and that it violates the due process and confrontation clauses of the state and federal constitutions to conduct such a hearing, at which sworn testimony of prosecution witnesses is taken, in the absence of the defendant.	3	1989–1994
People v. Anderson green ny · 1965 2 sentences 1994"In addition, the court held in People v. Anderson , 16 N.Y.2d 282 , 266 N.Y.S.2d 110 , 213 N.E.2d 445 (1965), that the constitutional guaranty of due process requires that a defendant be allowed to be present at a suppression hearing. 1994"In addition, the court held in People v. Anderson , 16 N.Y.2d 282 , 266 N.Y.S.2d 110 , 213 N.E.2d 445 (1965), that the constitutional guaranty of due process requires that a defendant be allowed to be present at a suppression hearing.	3	1989–1994
Ex Parte Stout green ala · 1989 2 sentences 1994"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Stout had a constitutional right to be present at the pre-trial suppression hearing, where his identification was in question." 547 So.2d at 903 . 1994"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Stout had a constitutional right to be present at the pre-trial suppression hearing, where his identification was in question." 547 So.2d at 903 .	2	1994–1994
Stout v. State green alacrimapp · 1988 2 sentences 1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the 1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the	2	1989–1990
Johnson v. State green ala · 1976 2 sentences 1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the 1989The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the pre-trial suppression hearing where the police procedure used to identify him was brought into question.	2	1989–1990
Johnson v. State green alacrimapp · 1976 2 sentences 1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the 1989The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the pre-trial suppression hearing where the police procedure used to identify him was brought into question.	2	1989–1990
Sterling v. Wyrick green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the 1989The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the pre-trial suppression hearing where the police procedure used to identify him was brought into question.	2	1989–1990
Ray v. Rose green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the 1989The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the pre-trial suppression hearing where the police procedure used to identify him was brought into question.	2	1989–1990
Maund v. State green alacrimapp · 1978 2 sentences 1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the 1989The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the pre-trial suppression hearing where the police procedure used to identify him was brought into question.	2	1989–1990
Waldrop v. State green alacrimapp · 1982 1 sentence 1986In support of his argument, the appellant cites Waldrop v. State , 424 So.2d 1345 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).	1	1986–1986

Where else courts name it

TX 35 (1983–2024) PA 24 (1969–2025) NY 8 (1993–2025) AL 7 (1982–1994) MD 5 (1987–2023) HI 5 (1980–2002) MS 4 (1988–2001) IN 4 (1975–1991) MN 4 (1995–2013) FL 4 (1978–1984) NC 3 (1985–2009) MO 3 (1990–2010) WV 3 (1995–2016) KY 3 (1983–1993) NJ 3 (1977–2018) VA 2 (1991–1998) OH 2 (1989–2019) TN 2 (2009–2019) LA 2 (1978–1999) SC 2 (2007–2018) CO 2 (2008–2012) WA 2 (2010–2026) GA 2 (2009–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check