557 So. 2d 1339 - Bradley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While investigating the murder, the police investigated various leads and came up with several `possible suspects.' Petitioner contends that a Brady violation occurred because the defense and the jury had a right to know the names and evidence concerning these other suspects. The respondent contends that these `possible suspects' were not readily identifiable, in that these `possible suspects' were merely talked to by the police to see what possible information they might have; none of these persons were suspects in the sense that the investigation actually focused on them. " Brady requires the prosecution to produce evidence that someone else may have committed the crime. See Sellers v. Estelle , 651 F.2d 1074 (5th Cir. 1981). *Page 917 In comparison with the other suspect in Sellers , the `other suspects' in the instant case were ephemeral. In Sellers , police reports indicated that another person had actually admitted committing the crime with which defendant was charged. Id . at 1075. In the instant case, police reports listed hundreds of possible suspects. Finding a Brady violation under these circumstances would be tantamount to requiring the government to turn over their entire investigation. Because Brady created no such general constitutional right to discovery, see Weatherford v. Bursey , 429 U.S. 545 , 559-60 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 845-46 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977), petitioner has failed to show a due process violation."”

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