396 So. 2d 733 - Tresvant v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to prevent the jury's being prejudiced by inadmissible hearsay, James establishes two procedural safeguards. Ideally, before trial the prosecutor should make a showing of substantial independent evidence that the statement is admissible. Then at the conclusion of evidence, considering both the prosecution's evidence and the defense's evidence, the trial court must find that the preponderance of the independent evidence shows the statement is admissible. The district court should, whenever reasonably practicable, require the showing of a conspiracy and of the connection of the defendant with it before admitting declarations of a coconspirator. If it determines it is not reasonably practical to require the showing to be made before admitting the evidence, the court may admit the statement subject to being connected up. ..... Regardless of whether the proof has been made in the preferred order, or the coconspirator's statement has been admitted subject to later connection, on appropriate motion at the conclusion of all the evidence the court must determine as a factual matter whether the prosecution has shown by a preponderance of the evidence independent of the statement itself (1) that a conspiracy existed, (2) that the coconspirator and the defendant against whom the coconspirator's statement is offered were members of the conspiracy, and (3) that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy... . If the court concludes that the prosec”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Morales

2. “The admissibility of hearsay statements of coconspirators is not dependent upon the existence of a count charging conspiracy.... The admissibility of these statements depends, instead, on the rule of evidence which excepts such statements from the general rule which makes heársay inadmissible.... Thus, whether or not a conspiracy is charged, the threshold condition of admissibility of a coconspirator’s hearsay statement— proof independent of the statement that the defendant against whom the statement is sought to be introduced and the declarant participated together in a conspiracy — remains the same.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 545 So. 2d 954 - State v. Brea

3. “Florida court has announced a test for the quantum of independent proof of conspiracy;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 421 So. 2d 725 - Saavedra v. State