293 So. 2d 807 - McCray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[once a jury is apprized of the fact that a co-defendant has been tried and convicted for the same charge for which the defendant is now on trial, the jury's] ability to objectively reach a fair verdict on the merits of the competent evidence before it [is] necessarily impaired. The jury [is then] placed in the untenable position of pitting its prospective verdict against a guilty verdict previously entered by another jury carrying with it the court's approval by way of the judgment and sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 525 So. 2d 809 - Johnson v. State · 806 So. 2d 185 - Randall v. State

2. ““We have maturely considered the argument and authorities advanced in support of the inadmissibility of the confession and are of the opinion that it is without merit. Our primary concern is with the consequences emanating from the introduction of a certified copy of the co-indictee’s conviction and sentence.” McCray v. State, 293 So.2d 807 -08.”

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

3. “The law is well settled in this state that where two or more persons are jointly indicted for the same offense but are separately tried, a judgment of conviction against one of them is not competent evidence on the trial of the other because such plea of guilty or conviction is no evidence of the guilt of the party being tried.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 806 So. 2d 185 - Randall v. State