404 So. 2d 1181 - State v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Here, defense counsel also had the opportunity, prior to the initial trial date, to test the alleged contraband and failed to do so. Instead, he chose to cross-examine the state's chemist concerning his analysis. Moreover, the defendant by his escape delayed the trial for two years by which time the sheriff's department, as part of its routine procedure, had destroyed evidence. It was only after the case had been reset for trial and defense counsel knew of the destruction of the contraband that he requested production of that evidence. While mere delay of a trial would not ordinarily excuse the destruction of crucial evidence, the fact the defense counsel had ample opportunity to test the contraband, combined with the delay unlawfully caused by the defendant, demonstrates that the defendant was not prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence." Id. at 1182 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 410 So. 2d 196 - State v. Bissett · 484 So. 2d 1174 - Jackson v. State

2. “Where the destruction of evidence is unnecessary and is not an unavoidable result of the testing process, introduction of testimony concerning the evidence may violate defendant's due process rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 445 So. 2d 605 - State v. Del Gaudio

3. “part of its routine procedure for destroying contraband in older cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 484 So. 2d 1174 - Jackson v. State