360 So. 2d 406 - Stuart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 58 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We deal here with a question that goes to the very nature and purpose of the speedy trial rule and to the basic principles of advocacy in an adversary system of criminal justice. Petitioner had a constitutional right to be brought to trial within a reasonable time. The rule of 180 days provides a practical way to effectuate the constitutional right. Defense counsel had tried to protect petitioner's constitutional right by announcing readiness for trial numerous times following the filing of the information. By the time of the hearing on the 180th day, petitioner's constitutional right had been stretched almost to the limit. By this point defense counsel was properly more concerned with protecting petitioner's entitlement to the remedy that follows from the violation of the rule. The proper time to argue about the operation of the rule and the entitlement to a discharge is at a hearing on a motion therefor, and a motion for discharge can only be effectively made when the movant is entitled to one-after the period has run. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(d)(1). Defense counsel was under no duty to correct the court's impression and to argue to the court that trial had to begin that day simply because he might have succeeded. This would have jeopardized his client's chances of getting the remedy for a violation of the speedy trial rule. As serious as is the duty of an attorney to keep the court apprised of its position and to advise on the ramifications of court action,”

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

2. “The State of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, moves this Honorable Court for entry of an Order continuing trial in the above cause, pursuant to Rule 3.191(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and as grounds therefor alleges as follows: 1. Unexpectedly Sgt. M.E. Shaw, a witness for the State, was admitted to the Lake City Veteran’s Administration Hospital on Tuesday, August 18,1981, with chest pains, and as of the time of this Motion, in satisfactory condition, but cannot attend trial on August 19, 1981. 2. Shaw’s presence is uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial in that he is the State’s main witness to the Defendant’s threats to kill the victim, and further js in the chain of custody for the knife which the Defendant is charged with possessing. 3. Defense counsel has no objections to such continuance and has verbally waived notice of hearing on the Motion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 435 So. 2d 924 - Strapp v. State

3. “A person is unavailable for trial if ... (2) the person or his counsel is not ready for trial on the date trial is scheduled. A person who has not been available for trial during the term provided for herein is not entitled to be discharged. No presumption of nonavailability attaches, but if the state objects to discharge and presents any evidence tending to show nonavailability, the accused then must by competent proof establish availability during the term.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 467 So. 2d 695 - Hill v. State