Mason Braswell v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 1 district · 40 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court." (Emphasis added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marshburn v. State · 354 So. 2d 530 - State v. Jones

2. “... we do not invalidate state use of the rule, nor do we prescribe a particular procedure a state trial court must follow in determining whether exclusion is proper. Upon the circumstances of each case the trial judge must weigh the exclusion of the witness against the defendant’s right to obtain witnesses in his behalf. Where the defendant has been advised of his constitutional right and there has been a knowing intelligent waiver by the defendant, exclusion would be permissible. And perhaps the consent, procurement, or knowledge on the part of defendant or his counsel might rise to the level of a waiver and thus render exclusion proper. But here there was no express waiver and no particular circumstances which would justify exclusion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Calloway v. Blackburn · Webb v. State

3. ““Closely related to Braswell’s sixth amendment right is his right to a fair trial—to due process. Braswell had a right to at least present the testimony of his sole corroborating witness to the jury. That the jury might still have returned a guilty verdict is beside the point; judgment of the credibility of witnesses is for the trier of fact. The trial court arbitrarily excluded Rogers upon no other basis than that he violated the rule. Such discretion cannot be permitted when it denies a defendant a fundamental constitutional right.” ( 463 F.2d 1148, 1155-56 .)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Webb v. State · 47 Ill. App. 3d 362 - People v. Johnson