20 So. 3d 623 - Tate v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
19 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Robinson · 895 So. 2d 836 - Bush v. State · 691 So. 2d 948 - Herring v. State · 468 So. 2d 45 - Fuselier v. State · 587 So. 2d 848 - Holland v. State
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Attorneys are allowed a wide latitude in arguing their cases to the jury. However, prosecutors are not permitted to use tactics which are inflammatory, highly prejudicial, or reasonably calculated to unduly influence the jury. The standard of review that appellate courts must apply to lawyer misconduct during opening statements or closing arguments is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice against the accused so as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[An appellate c]ourt should consider all the evidence in the case before [it], as well as all inferences which reasonably might be drawn from the evidence, and then view this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. In so doing, if [the court] conclude[s] that reasonable and fair-minded jurors, in the exercise of their impartial judgment, could reach different conclusions as to each element of the criminal offense for which the defendant is on trial, [it is] duty-bound to find that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the conviction and thus ... must affirm on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gilmer v. State“[t]here is a difference ... between a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify and a comment on the defendant’s failure to put on a successful de fense. The State is entitled to comment on the lack of any defense, and such comment will not be construed as a reference to the defendant’s failure to testify by innuendo and insinuation. The question is whether the prosecutor’s statement can be construed as commenting upon the failure of the defendant to take the stand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.