Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 439 So. 2d 1024 - State v. Acosta

439 So. 2d 1024 - State v. Acosta’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2008

19 state decisions

100198319902000decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Hialeah, Inc. v. Bell · 430 So. 2d 448 - Smith v. State · 179 So. 2d 873 - Spataro v. State · 194 So. 2d 250 - Westberry v. Daves Auto Parts

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

  1. “"To invoke an in camera hearing, a defendant must file a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts concerning the informant's involvement which, if true, would support the possibility of a specific asserted defense. Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The defendant need not allege all the elements of the defense; it is sufficient that the defense is possible in light of the alleged facts. See, e.g., Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), rev'd on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1978). Alternatively, the defendant's burden is met if the necessary facts are apparent from other evidence. Munford v. State , see also State v. Mesa . When it appears that a defendant may have a valid basis to invoke an in camera hearing, he is entitled to the opportunity to file a sworn affidavit alleging sufficient facts. See Riggins v. State, 374 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The materiality of the informant's testimony to the defense can be established in an in camera hearing, thereby sustaining the higher burden to show the need for disclosure. State v. Williams."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Disclosure is only helpful to the defense if the testimony of the informant would exculpate the defendant or materially vary from that of the police.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The defendant must make a preliminary showing of the colorability of the defense prior to disclosure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.