140 So. 2d 627 - Jackman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 33 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a defendant is not entitled to a transcript of statements of state witnesses taken by the prosecution in the course of preparation for trial unless they were taken before a magistrate or used by the prosecution at trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Drayton · Colebrook v. State

2. “Section 905.27, supra, prohibits disclosure by certain persons of testimony given before a grand jury “except when required by a court to disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is consistent with that of the witness given before the court * *.” Under this statute, and the decisions of our courts, it is settled that when the purposes of the secrecy rule are accomplished and a disclosure becomes essential to the attainment of justice, the secrecy rule may be relaxed, in the discretion of the court, upon the laying of a proper predicate. See Minton v. State, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 361 ; Trafficante v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 811 ; State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 123 Fla. 785 , 167 So. 687 . The proper procedure in such a case is for the trial judge, once the proper predicate has been laid, to examine the grand jury testimony sought to be disclosed with a view to making a determination of its materiality. Minton v. State, supra; Trafficante v. State, supra; Vann v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 133 . The importance of laying the proper predicate was stressed in Minton v. State, supra, 113 So.2d p. 365, where the court said: “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”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 480 So. 2d 253 - James v. Wille

3. ““The granting or denial of motions for severance is largely discretionary and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that there was an abuse of discretion. Manson v. State, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 272 ; Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280 , 166 So. 743 ; Palmer v. State, 106 Fla. 237 , 143 So. 126 , 145 So. 69 ; § 918.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Where evidence incompetent and prejudicial against one defendant is to be introduced against another, a denial of a motion for severance has been held to constitute an abuse of discretion only if the record indicates the defendant was injured thereby. Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 , 115 So. 519 . * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 189 So. 2d 642 - Campfield v. State