113 So. 2d 361 - Minton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court holds, under the terms of our statute and in accord with the great weight of authority in other jurisdictions, that in a prosecution for perjury (or subornation of perjury) allegedly committed before a grand jury, an accused has the right to inspect, in advance of trial, the transcript of testimony given before the grand jury upon which the perjury charged was based, in order to prepare his defense. See Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 524, 537 ; United States v. Rose, 3 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 617 . But with this one exception we have found no case — and none has been cited — in which an accused has been permitted to inspect, in advance of trial, the grand jury testimony of the State’s witnesses for the purpose of preparing his defense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa

2. “"But it is crystal clear that something more than a mere surmise or speculation that a witness's testimony at the trial is inconsistent with that given before the grand jury must be made to appear in order to hold a trial judge in error for refusing to lift the veil of secrecy from the grand jury proceedings. While, in a given case, the reasons for secrecy may no longer obtain, the effect on subsequent grand jury proceedings — on jurors, on witnesses, on the privacy of the system itself — of indiscriminate disclosure has been said to be of `greater moment.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 So. 2d 627 - Jackman v. State

3. “"[T]o protect the jurors themselves; to promote a complete freedom of disclosure; to prevent the escape of a person indicted before he may be arrested; to prevent the subornation of perjury in an effort to disprove facts there testified to; and to protect the reputations of persons against whom no indictment may be found." Minton v. State, supra, 113 So.2d at 365 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Drayton