Barnhill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A trial court’s decision whether to depart from the [sentencing] guidelines is a two-part process. First, the court must determine whether it can depart, i.e., whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate factual support for that ground in the case pending before it (step 1). Legal grounds are set forth in case law and statute, and facts supporting the ground must be proved at trial by “a preponderance of the evidence.” Second, where the step 1 requirements are met, the trial court further must determine whether it should de-. part, i.e., whether departure is indeed the best sentencing option for the defendant in the pending case. In making this determination (step 2), the court must weigh the totality of the circumstances in the case, including aggravating and mitigating factors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Little v. State · 158 So. 3d 669 - John Henry Fogarty v. State

2. “[I]t could not be believed that Barnhill received a hearing in a dispassionate environment before a fair and impartial judge. Rather, the transcript reflects the trial judge here was deeply concerned not by the facts specific to Barn-hill’s case but by the general nature of the crimes involved and the potential for defendants charged with these types of crimes to progress into crimes involving “hands-on” contact with children. Thus the trial judge at least implied that he would not consider a downward departure in child pornography cases as a general policy.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gibbs v. State · 154 So. 3d 469 - Goldstein v. State

3. “I just want you to know that I struggle on these cases, not just Mr. Barnhill’s, but these types of cases every single day of my life since I’ve been put into this division, and there’s not one day that goes by, not one, that I don’t think about these cases. Mr. Barnhill is one of many individuals that come in front of me that have absolutely no criminal record whatsoever, none, that live a dark side, if you will, that no one knows about. Family members don’t know about, teachers don’t know about, business associates don’t know about[.] [T]he only people that know about it is Mr. Barnhill and other persons that have like interests that he would choose to know about his interests as well. [[Image here]] This child pornography phenomenon, if you will, is becoming an epidemic. It’s bigger, I think, than what any of us in this, room or in law enforcement circles absolutely realize.... And the psychologists in their book ... list it as a fantasy [.] [Pjedophiles are real. They’re real. They may have some twisted fantasy about observing prepubescent children in bondage situations and being raped and having sexual intercourse and oral intercourse, being sodomized, but even though that might be a fantasy of watching those things on a computer while they stimulate themselves, it’s real when they touch. And when they touch, that child is damaged forever, forever. And maybe it’s what some people don’t even — don’t even think about. It’s just a picture. It’s not just a picture. This is a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 154 So. 3d 469 - Goldstein v. State