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.
6 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKissack v. Stategreen1 sentence2010The Alabama Supreme Court has explained that: “Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State’s witness who testified before the grand jury[,] ... the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness’ grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecution; (2) and that there exists an inconsistency between grand jury testimony and trial testimony.” McKissack v. State, 926 So.2d 367, 370 (Ala.2005) (citations and quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Pate
green
2 sentences2013As ; this Court stated in Millican v. State, 423 So.2d 268 (Ala.Crim.App.1982): “ ‘ “Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State’s witness who testified before the grand jury or before a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony, see Palermo [v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 (1959),] and Pate [v. State, 415 So.2d 1140 (Ala.1981) ], the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness’ grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecution; (2) and that there 2011As this Court stated in Millican v. State, 423 So.2d 268 (Ala.Crim.App.1982): “ ‘ “Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State’s witness who testified before the grand jury ... a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony, see Palermo [v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 , 79 S.Ct. 1217 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1959),] and Pate[v. State, 415 So.2d 1140 (Ala.1981) ], the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness’ grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecut | 5 | 2006–2013 |
Palermo v. United States
green
2 sentences2013As ; this Court stated in Millican v. State, 423 So.2d 268 (Ala.Crim.App.1982): “ ‘ “Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State’s witness who testified before the grand jury or before a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony, see Palermo [v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 (1959),] and Pate [v. State, 415 So.2d 1140 (Ala.1981) ], the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness’ grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecution; (2) and that there 2011As this Court stated in Millican v. State, 423 So.2d 268 (Ala.Crim.App.1982): “ ‘ “Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State’s witness who testified before the grand jury ... a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony, see Palermo [v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 , 79 S.Ct. 1217 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1959),] and Pate[v. State, 415 So.2d 1140 (Ala.1981) ], the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness’ grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecut | 5 | 2006–2013 |
Millican v. State
green
2 sentences2013As ; this Court stated in Millican v. State, 423 So.2d 268 (Ala.Crim.App.1982): “ ‘ “Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State’s witness who testified before the grand jury or before a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony, see Palermo [v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 (1959),] and Pate [v. State, 415 So.2d 1140 (Ala.1981) ], the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness’ grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecution; (2) and that there 2011As this Court stated in Millican v. State, 423 So.2d 268 (Ala.Crim.App.1982): “ ‘ “Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State’s witness who testified before the grand jury ... a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony, see Palermo [v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 , 79 S.Ct. 1217 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1959),] and Pate[v. State, 415 So.2d 1140 (Ala.1981) ], the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness’ grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecut | 5 | 2006–2013 |
Blackmon v. State
green
1 sentence2010“However, a defendant may be allowed to inspect grand-jury proceedings if the defendant meets the threshold test of showing a ‘particularized need’ for breaching the secrecy of those proceedings.” Blackmon, 7 So.3d at 409 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.