467 So. 2d 447 - Frazier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the expression `vindictiveness' [or vindictive sentencing] is simply a term of art which expresses the legal effect of a given objective course of action, and does not imply any personal or subjective animosity between the court (or a prosecutor) and the defendant.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allende v. State · Richardson v. State

2. “The law is clear that any judicially imposed penalty which needlessly discourages assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and deters the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial is patently unconstitutional. United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 , 88 S.Ct. 1209 , 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richardson v. State · 793 So. 2d 1195 - KNM v. State

3. “In sum, the defendant cannot be heard to complain if the fact that his sentence is greater than the plea offer is the result, not of the assertion of his rights, but of his rejection of the proposed agreement and of the fair conclusion as to his punishment which the court has the consequent ability to render. See United States v. Lippert, 740 F.2d 457 (6th Cir.1984); Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d at 885 ; Martin v. Blackburn, 606 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 911 , 100 S.Ct. 1841 , 64 L.Ed.2d 265 (1980); United States v. Cunningham, 529 F.2d 884, 888 (6th Cir.1976). Indeed, were the rule otherwise, and as defense counsel in this case explicitly recognized, all plea negotiations would necessarily be futile, since a defendant like Frazier could reject any offer with riskless impunity in the certain knowledge that, even if the jury found against him, the offer represents the outer limits of his possible exposure. But just as the Constitution does not forbid plea bargaining, it cannot be deemed to require — as it would if Frazier's position were accepted — the destruction of the process through the elimination of the shared understanding of its essential elements which forms its very foundation. [I]t stretches our credulity to think that one who declines to plead guilty with a recommended sentence acceptable to the court should nevertheless be given the benefits of a bargain available to, but rejected by, him. United States v. Resnick, 483 F.2d 354, 358 (5th Cir.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mitchell v. State