Valle v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 16 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. “"The state admits that appellant's trial which commenced twenty-four days after arraignment constituted a period of time considerably less than average for capital cases, but contends that the denial of the trial continuance was both reasonable under the circumstances and a proper exercise of discretion. The state argues that the conviction and sentence should stand because (1) appellant failed to identify any resulting prejudice; (2) the evidence of appellant's guilt was overwhelming; and (3) defense counsel would not have been better prepared even if allowed more time. We reject the state's contentions and, under the circumstances of this case, find that the trial judge abused her discretion. "It is a basic due process right and essential to a fair trial that defense counsel in a criminal case be afforded a reasonable opportunity to prepare his case. The United States Supreme Court has made this clear: `We have many times repeated that not only does due process require that a defendant, on trial in a state court upon a serious criminal charge and unable to defend himself, shall have the benefit of counsel, ... but that it is a denial of the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial to force him to trial with such expedition as to deprive him of the effective aid and assistance of counsel.' White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 763-64 , 65 S.Ct. 978, 980 , 89 L.Ed. 1348 (1945) (citations omitted). Accord, Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271 , 66 S.Ct. 116 , 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945); Powell v”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Naveira · 691 So. 2d 490 - Banks v. State

2. “"Justice requires, and it is the universal rule, observed in all courts of this country, it is most sincerely to be hoped, that reasonable time is afforded to all persons accused of crime in which to prepare for their defense. A judicial trial becomes a farce, a mere burlesque, and in serious cases a most gruesome one at that, when a person is hurried into a trial upon an indictment charging him with a high crime, without permitting him the privilege of examining the charge and time for preparing his defense. It is unnecessary to dwell upon the seriousness of such an error; it strikes at the root and base of constitutional liberties; it makes for a deprivation of liberty or life without due process of law; it destroys confidence in the institutions of free America and brings our very government into disrepute. " [emphasis supplied.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 691 So. 2d 490 - Banks v. State · 439 So. 2d 1039 - Westbrook v. State

3. “"The law requires that each defendant have sufficient time to prepare a defense, including the opportunity to utilize available procedural discovery rules provided for that purpose. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(1)(I) requires the prosecution to disclose to defense counsel the `names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information which may be relevant to the offense charged, and to any defense with respect thereto.' It necessarily follows that the trial court must allow defense counsel the time to interview these persons to properly prepare for trial. " [emphasis supplied.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Naveira · 691 So. 2d 490 - Banks v. State