461 So. 2d 936 - Bush v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “they assist the medical examiner in explaining to the jury the nature and manner in which the wounds were inflicted.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. State · 640 So. 2d 1127 - Taylor v. State

2. “unlike failure to name a witness, changed testimony does not rise to the level of a discovery violation and will not support a motion for a Richardson inquiry.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · State v. Evans

3. “[Bush] argues that during the sentencing phase the prosecutor made an appeal for sympathy and revenge for the family of the victim in the following statement to the jury: "I ask you, don't consider the sympathy that Mr. and Mrs. Campbell have. Don't consider that when Mr. and Mrs. Campbell sit down to Thanksgiving dinner just three days from now that they are going to look across the table and they are going to look at Cathy and they are going to see Frances Julia Slater, the identical twin sister. If sympathy had any part of it, think of what they go through. And every time they sit down and look at her, this whole incident is going to come back ..." Bush contends that this appeal for retribution was devastating inasmuch as the jury vote was 7-5 in favor of imposing the death penalty. We disagree. We have previously held that although "the rule against inflammatory and abusive argument by a state's attorney is clear, each case must be considered upon its own merits and within the circumstances pertaining when the questionable statements are made...." Darden v. State, 329 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla. 1976), cert. dismissed, 430 U.S. 704 , 97 S.Ct. 1671 , 51 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977). ... . We find that the above appeal to the jury's sympathies was of minor impact and does not merit resentencing. The statements are not a clear abuse, nor do they rise to the magnitude of a denial of fundamental fairness.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 503 So. 2d 310 - Muehleman v. State · 844 So. 2d 629 - Conahan v. State