111 So. 3d 810 - Braddy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is—at least in some contexts—reversible error for a prosecutor to “exhort the jury to ‘do its job,’ ” because “that kind of pressure ... has no place in the administration of criminal justice.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Similar concerns regarding improper pressure on the jury are raised here by the prosecutor’s suggestion that finding Braddy guilty of a lesser offense rather than first-degree murder “would be a miscarriage of justice.” See United States v. Ingraldi, 793 F.2d 408, 415-16 (1st Cir. 1986) (accepting government’s concession that prosecutor’s “statement that it would be ‘a miscarriage of justice to acquit’ ” was improper).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sampson v. State

2. “Prior to the challenged testimony, Detective Milito had testified that he was dispatched to Braddy’s home after learning that Braddy had been implicated in a violent kidnapping, attempted murder, and possible murder of a child. Given this information and the change in Braddy’s demeanor upon being confronted, Detective Milito’s reference to Brad-dy’s history could most reasonably be interpreted in context as referring to the facts of the crime that was being investigated. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Braddy’s motion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 214 So. 3d 625 - Victor Guzman v. State of Florida

3. “[STATE]: The defendant intended to kill her. He intended to kidnap her. He intended to kill her. To find him guilty of anything less than intentional premeditated first-degree murder, either by premeditation or felony would be to minimize what occurred. [DEFENSE]: Objection, Your Honor. [THE COURT]: All right. The objection is sustained. Rephrase it please. [STATE]: To find him guilty of anything less would not be supported by the evidence, and it would be a miscarriage of justice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sampson v. State