Redd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because fairness is the key concern of this evidentiary principle, the mere fact that testimony may be characterized as incomplete or misleading does not automatically trigger the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence under the “opening the door” rule. Rather, the State must demonstrate a legitimate need to resort to such evidence to correct a false impression. Otherwise, the “opening the door” rule threatens to become a pretext for the illegitimate use of inadmissible evidence, and the fairness-promoting purpose of the rule is lost. In deciding whether fairness requires the admission of evidence under the “opening the door” principle, a court should consider the “general unreliability of inadmissible evidence.” Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 580 (Fla.1999). The more unreliable the evidence is, the less likely it is that fairness requires its admission. See id. Hearsay is sometimes admissible under the “opening the door” principle. Nevertheless, the inherent unreliability of hearsay is a factor to be considered when it is sought to be admitted under this principle. See Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 580 . In such a situation, “the appropriate inquiry ... is whether based on considerations of fairness, the door was opened wide enough by defense counsel’s questions to permit otherwise inadmissible and unreliable statements to be admitted into evidence.” Id.”

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