Rich v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “For future situations where a relevant statement includes an irrelevant racial slur, we remind attorneys and trial courts to consider redacting the racial slur. As the supreme court stated in Jones : [W]e strongly caution prosecutors against eliciting testimony involving racial slurs unless absolutely necessary .... In circumstances such as this, we strongly suggest that prosecutors err on the side of caution by omitting these statements and that trial courts consider the danger that the prejudicial effect of such evidence will substantially outweigh any probative value. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995). [ 748 So.2d at 1023 ] .... Moreover, redacting the express statement of the racial slur, as the defendant requested, may have prevented the defendant’s concern that his statement would affect the verdict.”

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

2. “The fact that race may have motivated the defendant to sell cocaine to a black person instead of a white person, as the state argued in closing, had no bearing on the fact that the defendant was selling cocaine. This case is unlike those cases in which a defendant’s use of a racial slur was relevant to show the defendant’s state of mind as an element of the crime charged. See, e.g., Clinton v. State, 970 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (evidence that defendant, after stabbing victim, screamed “I’m going to kill you nigger” was properly admitted to prove defendant acted with premeditated design to cause the victim’s death).”

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