403 So. 2d 355 - Tafero v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 37 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Both murders were committed by the Defendant while he was on parole and while he was actually a fugitive from justice. 2. The Defendant does have a significant history of prior criminal activity involving the use or threat of violence to the person of another. * * * 4. The Murders were committed by MR. TAFERO for the purpose of avoiding or preventing lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody. * * * 5. The Murders were committed to hinder the lawful enforcement of the laws of this State. The victims of these murders, two law enforcement officers, were attempting to enforce the laws of this State after discovering various firearms and various types of drugs and controlled substances in the automobile in which the Defendant was a passenger.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 681 F. Supp. 1531 - Tafero v. Dugger · 440 So. 2d 570 - Jones v. State

2. “[T]he evidence against him is overwhelming. In addition to the eyewitness testimony, bullets removed from the victims match the gun in Tafero’s possession at his arrest. We do not accept Tafero’s contention that Rhodes’ testimony was unbelievable in that Rhodes actually did the shooting. Rhodes’ testimony is corroborated by both the physical evidence and the other eyewitnesses’ testimony. Additionally, both truck drivers noticed Rhodes’ hands in the air when the first shots were fired. The evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Tafero is guilty of the premeditated murder of both Irwin and Black.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 681 F. Supp. 1531 - Tafero v. Dugger · 459 So. 2d 1034 - Tafero v. State

3. “No personal bias or prejudice has been demonstrated in this case. The mere fact that Judge Futch was, in the distant past, a highway patrol officer does not support a claim of bias or prejudice on the judge's part. Tafero presented nothing to warrant the judge's disqualification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tafero v. Wainwright