Owens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]e call the recent case of Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 [ 105 S.Ct. 2192 , 85 L.Ed.2d 553 ] (1985), to the attention of the trial court and the prison authorities. In Ponte v. Real, the Supreme Court elaborated on its Wolff v. McDonnell [, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974),] position regarding the necessity for a statement of reasons for not calling witnesses. The Court held that a statement of reasons was constitutionally required, but that such reasons did not have to be in writing or otherwise made part of the administrative record of the disciplinary hearing. Rather, the state could satisfy its burden through its testimony in court following a prisoner’s challenge of the constitutional adequacy of the disciplinary proceeding. The Court further indicated that this testimony could be presented to the court in camera when prison security or a similar paramount interest so required.””

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

2. “"A disciplinary hearing is neither a civil nor a criminal proceeding. As a consequence, the formal rules of evidence observed in criminal and civil trials do no apply. . . . The end result appears to be that disciplinary hearings are sui generis, governed by neither the evidentiary rules of a civil trial, a criminal trial, nor an administrative hearing. The only limitations appear to be those imposed by due process, statute, or administrative regulations. "The admissibility of hearsay evidence at prison disciplinary hearings is impliedly authorized by the Supreme Court's discussion of confrontation and cross-examination in Wolff v. McDonnell. Since neither right must be afforded an inmate, it follows that hearsay may not be *Page 1016 objected to on these grounds. Accordingly, hearsay testimony has been held admissible in disciplinary hearings."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 564 So. 2d 1014 - Pearsall v. State

3. “[w]hile hearsay testimony may be admissible [at prison disciplinary hearings], it may not be sufficient by itself in all cases to support a finding of guilt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 597 So. 2d 753 - Parker v. State