421 So. 2d 15 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

cited by 42 later decisions

states following

March 2017

most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio (1986), 443 So. 2d 955 - State v. Murray (1984)

41 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Modica · 112 So. 2d 380 - In re Florida Appellate Rules · Deas v. State · Burkhead v. Dade County Board of Public Instruction · Lee A. Tharpe Construction Co. v. Chivers

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

“We choose to employ this decision to discuss the broader, very serious problem it exemplifies. For some time, this court has been faced with a veritable torrent of cases which have similarly involved significant prosecutorial improprieties committed by assistant state attorneys in this district. E.g., Chapman v. State, 417 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Gomez v. State, 415 So.2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Harris v. State, 414 So.2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kindell v. State, 413 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Harper v. State, supra, 411 So.2d 235, 236-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ruiz v. State, supra, 395 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Porter v. State, 386 So.2d 1209, 1213-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Glassman v. State, 377 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The volume of these casesincluding multiple acts of misconduct by particular prosecutorsis so great that we can no longer believe that they represent merely isolated examples of understandable, if inexcusable, overzealousness in the heat of trial. Instead, we must suspect, however reluctantly, that the improprieties may be deliberately calculated to accomplish just what representatives of the state cannot be permittedinducing a jury to convict by unfairly prejudicing it against the defendant. It is obvious that this pattern of conduct cannot be tolerated. It is just as apparent, and just as distressing, however, that our prior efforts to eliminate the practice have proven entirely inadequ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 852 So. 2d 911 - Thornton v. State
“the prejudicial effect of these remarks might have been dissipated if, as required, the trial judge had emphatically rebuked the state attorney and affirmatively instructed the jury that the comments must be totally disregarded, Deas v. State, 119 Fla. 839 , 161 So. 729, 731 (1935)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 736 So. 2d 44 - D'Ambrosio v. State
“The prosecutor's personal attacks upon defense counsel during final argument which reached their apogee (or nadir) when the jurors were asked whether they would buy a used car from him were, as is now acknowledged by the State, utterly and grossly improper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Johnson v. State

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.