Trull v. Long
In Trull v. Long, 621 So. 2d 1278 (Ala. 1993) the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiff's expert witness to testify concerning an alleged conspiracy of silence when a proper predicate had not been laid for admission of evidence relating to such an alleged conspiracy.
In so holding, the Court discussed Batizy v. Smith, 530 So. 2d 794, 796 (Ala. 1988), and stated that although it had affirmed the trial court's ruling in Batizy, it did not intend to hold in that case that evidence of a conspiracy of silence would not be admissible under any circumstances. Trull, 621 So. 2d at 1281.