Westlake v. Miner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the convenience [to the state] of a joint trial is not an exceptional circumstance justifying a state's motion for extension of the speedy trial time.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 478 So. 2d 1066 - Miner v. Westlake · 463 So. 2d 1172 - Rico v. State

2. “(f) Exceptional Circumstances. As permitted by (d)(2) of this Rule, the court may order an extension of the time periods provided under this Rule where exceptional circumstances are shown to exist. Exceptional circumstances shall not include general congestion of the court's docket, lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses, or other avoidable or foreseeable delays. Exceptional circumstances are those which as a matter of substantial justice to the accused or the State or both require an order by the court: Such circumstances include (1) unexpected illness or unexpected incapacity or unforeseeable and unavoidable absence of a person whose presence or testimony is uniquely necessary for a full and adequate trial; (2) a showing by the State that the case is so unusual and so complex, due to the number of defendants or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate investigation and preparation within the periods of time established by this Rule; (3) a showing by the State that specific evidence or testimony is not available despite diligent efforts to secure it, but will become available at a later time; (4) a showing by the accused or the State of necessity for delay grounded on developments which could not have been anticipated and which will materially affect the trial; (5) a showing that a delay is necessary to accommodate a co-defendant, where there is reason not to sever the cases in order to proceed prom”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 478 So. 2d 1066 - Miner v. Westlake · 463 So. 2d 496 - Darby v. State

3. “Is the convenience to the state of trying co-defendants together a sufficient reason in and of itself to extend an objecting defendant's speedy trial time and deny a motion to sever when a delay is necessary to accommodate a codefendant?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 478 So. 2d 1066 - Miner v. Westlake · 463 So. 2d 496 - Darby v. State