Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Seals v. State

19 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Wiman

    304 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1962)   Cited 105 times
    Using U.S. Supreme Court precedent to determine that "the presence of no [African-Americans] on the 18-man grand jury which indicted [the defendant], and the 2 [African-Americans] on the venire of the 110 persons from which came the petit jury which convicted [the defendant] and condemned him to death was not a mere fortuitous accident but was the result of systematic exclusion of [African-Americans] from the jury rolls"

    Seals, a Negro, was convicted of the rape of a white woman and was sentenced to death by electrocution. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama. Seals v. State, 1960, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513. A petition for leave to file in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis was denied by the Supreme Court of Alabama, Ex parte Seals, 1961, 271 Ala. 622, 126 So.2d 474. Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, "without prejudice to an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate United States District Court." Seals v. Alabama, 1961, 366 U.S. 954, 81 S.Ct. 1909, 6 L.Ed.2d 1246. Application was made pursuant to that suggestion, and this appeal is from the judgment of the district court denying the application for habeas corpus.

  2. Hubbard v. State

    283 Ala. 183 (Ala. 1968)   Cited 72 times
    In Hubbard, however, the issue of defendant's right to a preliminary hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to determine the admissibility of evidence was not presented.

    The question raised on the second Aaron appeal was that the defendant's rights under § 6 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 were violated in that he was "compelled to give evidence against himself" because he was asked to repeat certain words. The decision in Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513, is not in conflict with the Aaron decision under the particular facts of the case. Seals was not compelled to repeat any words which the prosecutrix said were used by her assailants during the attack upon her.

  3. Seals v. State

    282 Ala. 586 (Ala. 1968)   Cited 78 times
    In Seals v. State, 282 Ala. 586, 213 So.2d 645 (Ala. 1968), the victim identified Seals during her testimony on direct examination, and she testified that she had identified Seals in a live lineup at the jail.

    On June 2, 1960, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. We denied application for rehearing on August 18, 1960. — Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513. Seals did not seek a review of our action by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, on November 1, 1960, Seals filed in this court his petition to be permitted to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Circuit Court of Mobile. That was the proper procedure at the time, since we had affirmed the judgment of the trial court, but an application to this court is no longer necessary. Under Supreme Court Rule 50, adopted December 6, 1965, "Petitions for writs of error coram nobis shall be filed in the trial court without first applying for and receiving permission of the Supreme Court; * * *"

  4. Coleman v. State

    44 Ala. App. 429 (Ala. Crim. App. 1968)   Cited 14 times

    * * *" However, in view of the emphasis exhibited by Merrill, J., in Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513, I see no adoption of the South Carolina rule. Even though the use of the same words may be highly suggestible, Alabama seems uncommitted as to labeling the device as self-incriminatory.

  5. Billingsley v. State

    254 So. 2d 333 (Ala. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    It is only fair to the trial court and the court reporter to state that, at the time this case was tried, the law as we knew it did not require that the qualifying questions and answers to jurors be transcribed unless some objection was made during the qualification. See: Title 15, § 380; Supreme Court Rule 25; Davis v. State, 259 Ala. 212, 66 So.2d 714; and Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513. Since the trial, the law has been changed by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776. In the recent case of Beecher v. State, 1971, 288 Ala. ___, 256 So.2d 154, this court said:

  6. Thomas v. State

    173 So. 2d 111 (Ala. 1965)   Cited 20 times
    In Thomas v. State, 277 Ala. 570, 173 So.2d 111 (1965), the Alabama Supreme Court held that a motion to quash is the proper way to challenge an indictment and trial venire on grounds of intentional racial discrimination.

    Seals v. Wiman, supra, arose out of a conviction of Seals in the Circuit Court of Mobile County of the crime of rape. His conviction was affirmed by this court. Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513. A petition for leave to file in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis was denied by this court on the ground that Seals, a negro, by not timely attacking the composition of the jury in the trial court, had waived his right to assert that members of his race had been systematically excluded from the grand and petit jury. Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, without prejudice to an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate United States District Court. Seals v. State of Alabama, 366 U.S. 954, 81 S.Ct. 1909, 6 L.Ed.2d 1246. Application was then made to a federal district court pursuant to the suggestion of the Supreme Court of the United States, but the application for writ of habeas corpus was denied.

  7. Ex Parte Aaron

    275 Ala. 377 (Ala. 1963)   Cited 20 times

    In Ex parte Howard, supra, we in effect recognized that our holdings in the cases last cited above had been vitiated by the Harpole Case and the Wiman Case. In Seals v. State, supra, we were confronted with a petition for leave to file in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis by Seals, a Negro, whose conviction of rape had been affirmed by this court. — Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513. The right to file the petition was grounded on averments to the effect that Negroes had been systematically excluded from the grand jury which indicted Seals and the petit jury which tried him. We denied the petition on the ground that no matter involving irregularities of either the grand jury or petit jury was presented in Seals' trial for rape.

  8. Aaron v. State

    273 Ala. 337 (Ala. 1962)   Cited 73 times
    In Aaron v. State, 273 Ala. 337, 139 So.2d 309, cert. den. 371 U.S. 846, 9 L.Ed.2d 82, 83 S.Ct. 81, an accused was taken by a deputy sheriff into a room equipped with a one-way window which permitted a witness to observe the accused and hear his conversations without his knowledge.

    But appellant argues that his constitutional rights under Sec. 6 were violated because he did not know that prosecutrix and Dr. Murchison were watching and listening when he was talking. This question was recently settled by us in Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 142, 122 So.2d 513. In that case, we committed ourselves to the holding that a defendant may be required to stand in a certain place where he can be observed and be required to talk so that his voice can be heard by his alleged victim when he is not aware that he is being observed or listened to.

  9. Ex Parte Seals

    126 So. 2d 474 (Ala. 1961)   Cited 31 times

    Willie Seals, Jr., was convicted in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, of the offense of rape. He is a Negro and his victim was a white woman. On appeal to this court, Seals' conviction was affirmed, ante, p. 142, 122 So.2d 513. The indictment against Seals was returned by the grand jury of Mobile County on October 24, 1958. He entered a plea of not guilty and was tried by a jury, which, on December 4, 1958, returned a verdict of guilty as charged and fixed his punishment at death.

  10. Aaron v. State

    271 Ala. 70 (Ala. 1960)   Cited 105 times
    In Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 77, 122 So.2d 360 (1960), we followed Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), which held that the Fifth Amendment does not require that the evidence put before the grand jury be completely without taint.

    The South Carolina and Texas cases specifically condemn this practice. Cf. Seals v. State, post p. 142, 122 So.2d 513. The deputy sheriff who had the defendant in custody at the time the defendant repeated the words said that after talking to the defendant "for some time" he, the deputy sheriff, "asked him to repeat some things after me."