381 So. 2d 683 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he crux of a Bruton violation is the introduction of statements which incriminate an accused without affording him an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 993 So. 2d 1047 - Milton v. State · 503 So. 2d 310 - Muehleman v. State

2. “Although the Solicitor's reading of [the witness'] alleged statement, and [the witness'] refusals to answer, were not technically testimony, the Solicitor's reading may well have been the equivalent in the jury's mind of testimony that [the witness] in fact made the statement; and [the witness'] reliance upon the privilege created a situation in which the jury might improperly infer both that the statement had been made and that it was true. [Citation omitted.] Since the Solicitor was not a witness, the inference from his reading that [the witness] made the statement could not be tested by cross-examination. * * * [The] effective confrontation of [the witness] was possible only if [he] affirmed the statement as his. However, [the witness] did not do so, but relied on his privilege to refuse to answer. We need not decide whether [he] properly invoked the privilege in light of his conviction. It is sufficient for the purposes of deciding petitioner's claim under the Confrontation Clause that no suggestion is made that [his] refusal to answer was procured by the petitioner.... This case cannot be characterized as one where the prejudice in the denial of the right cross-examination constituted a mere minor lapse. The alleged statements clearly bore on a fundamental part of the State's case against the petitioner. The circumstances are therefore such that inferences from a witness' refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-exa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 993 So. 2d 1047 - Milton v. State

3. “In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the findings suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foster v. Strickland