565 So. 2d 1233 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, a trial court's ruling on a motion for change of venue will not be overturned.... In order to grant a motion for change of venue, the defendant must prove that there existed actual prejudice against the defendant or that the community was saturated with prejudicial publicity.... Newspaper articles or widespread publicity, without more, are insufficient to grant a motion for change of venue.... As the Supreme Court explained in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642-43 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961): "`To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court....' "The standard of fairness does not require jurors to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.... Thus, `[t]he proper manner for ascertaining whether adverse publicity may have biased the prospective jurors is through the voir dire examination.'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Tomlin v. State · 587 So. 2d 1072 - Parker v. State

2. “the difference between probable cause to arrest and reasonable suspicion to stop 'may lie in the degree of the probability required,' 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.3(b) at 431 (2d ed. 1987), and the quantum [and quality] of information required, id. § 9.3(e) at 478-79.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 631 So. 2d 285 - Jones v. State

3. “The information obtained from the anonymous telephone informant and corroborated by the sheriff's department satisfies the totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining probable cause set out in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 587 So. 2d 1072 - Parker v. State