412 So. 2d 1380 - State v. Barkley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case ... each defendant failed to establish (despite the testimony at the hearing on the motion to sever) the probability that the other would in fact testify at a separate trial and present exculpatory evidence. The proposed testimony by Barnes—that both defendants had consensual intercourse with the victim—would have been a highly self-incriminating statement on Barnes' part at Barkley's trial, and the trial judge properly regarded as highly unlikely Barnes' declaration that he would not invoke his constitutional privilege in a separate trial. Furthermore, the exculpatory evidence in this case (in which one defendant in order to testify at the trial of the other must place himself at the scene of the alleged crime and must admit several of the elements of the offense charged against him) is vastly different from exculpatory testimony such as, for example, that he and the codefendant were together in Texas at the time of the alleged crime. Denial of the opportunity to call a codefendant as the sole alibi witness may well be sufficiently prejudicial to establish an abuse of discretion in denying a severance of trial. But we cannot say that the trial judge erred in concluding that one defendant would not likely have incriminated himself at a separate trial in order to establish the other's innocence or that the denial of the motion to sever in this case was so prejudicial as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Toussaint

2. “A judge’s disposition to impose a lenient sentence during plea discussions should not be understood as setting a limit for the justifiable sentence under accepted principles of criminal justice. The better view, we think, is that the plea proposal is a concession from the greatest justifiable sentence, the concession being made because of circumstances surrounding the plea. Id. at 1045 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Scott

3. “(1) the state elects to try them separately; or (2) The court, on motion of the defendant, and after contradictory hearing with the district attorney, is satisfied that justice requires a severance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 550 So. 2d 219 - State v. Rubbicco