286 So. 2d 532 - Seay v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] challenge or objection to the grand jury may not be made after it has been empaneled and sworn.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Francois v. State · Leonard P Gonzalez Jr. v. State of Florida

2. “* * * * * * "Appellant has asserted by various motions that the grand jury which returned the indictment against him was improperly constituted in that it discriminatorily excluded certain `identifiable groups' (specified in the motion) from the grand jury master list, and sought to prove his charge of discriminatory selection of the grand jury pool by deposing the grand jury commissioners and clerk of the grand jury commission and by examining the Dade County Grand Jury Master List. The motion for production of the grand jury master list was denied, as was the motion for permission to depose the chairman and clerk of the grand jury commission." * * * * * * "Before a court will be required to permit a full-scale investigation of its jury panel, the panel must be shown to be suspect, and no such showing was made in the instant case. This requirement of showing a factual basis for the challenge in order to require a full-scale investigation of the panel does not, of course, require that the challenger show the panel to be improperly constituted, but it does require that the challenger assert facts tending to raise a doubt as to whether the panel may be improperly constituted; if such factual assertions are made, in inquiry will then follow to see if such suspicion, duly alleged, is supported by proof. In the present case, no such factual basis was asserted for the challenge, and the trial court merely ruled upon a motion which it found not to be well founded." * * * * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 300 So. 2d 695 - Dykman v. State

3. “A plea of nolo contendere can be made and accepted in a capital case provided that the usual requirement[s] of comprehension and understanding are reflected in the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 597 So. 2d 256 - Koenig v. State