Silvestri v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... obviously has the power — to grant the defendant a `pardon' for the more serious offense by convicting him only of a lesser one, even one which does not exist as a matter of fact. Bailey v. State, Fla. 1969, 224 So.2d 296 ; Gilford v. State, Fla. 1975, 313 So.2d 729, 735 (dissenting opinion). This conclusion requires, in turn, the holding that the jury cannot be faulted — and a defendant (who in this case did not object to the instruction on attempts)[ [2] ] cannot be heard to complain — when the jury exercises its power to pardon him or her through the conviction of a crime which he or she undoubtedly did not commit." * * * * * * "... we are required conclusively to presume — and we could not even receive jurors' affidavits to the contrary, State v. Smith, 183 So.2d 34 (Fla.App.2d 1966), and cases cited; Smith v. State, 330 So.2d 59 (Fla.App. 1st, opinion filed April 13, 1976) — that the jury acted properly as to matters which necessarily inhered in its verdicts. Since the granting of a `pardon' was within the jury's proper function, we must assume, even though we may suspect otherwise, that that's what it did."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sutton v. State · 368 So. 2d 395 - Lee v. State

2. “Just as the crime of uttering a forged instrument may be proven merely by an attempt to negotiate one, Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220 , 83 So. 922 (1920), so it would seem, the offense of making a false report is fully proven by demonstrating an attempt to convey false information to a police officer. Thus, the holding of the First District in King v. State, 317 So.2d 852 (Fla.App. 1st 1975) which we followed in Jackson v. State, 328 So.2d 457 (Fla.App. 4th 1976) that there is no offense in Florida of attempted uttering of a forged instrument because "there can be no attempt to commit ..." a crime which "is itself an attempt to do an act or accomplish a result" ... 317 So.2d at 853 , directly applies. See People v. Schmidt, 76 Misc.2d 976 , 352 N.Y.S.2d 399, 403 (Crim.Ct. 1974) (no offense of "attempted `interference with governmental administration'").”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. Murphy

3. “[T]here is no question at all that there is no evidence to support the verdicts which the jury actually returned.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 550 So. 2d 142 - Brown v. State