567 So. 2d 581 - State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he administrative disadvantages of allowing defendants generally to challenge the evidence supporting grand jury indictments (thereby opening grand jury transcripts for inspection and permitting minitrials of indictments) usually outweigh the value of eliminating an unwarranted prosecution at the screening stage, especially in the absence of prejudice to the defendant.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 710 So. 2d 846 - State v. Delcambre · State v. Taylor

2. “Generally, a defendant does not have a constitutional right to challenge an indictment by asserting the illegality of the evidence that was presented to the grand jury. In Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), the Court denied a challenge to an indictment allegedly based on hearsay evidence. Noting that to permit such a challenge would allow the accused in every case to “insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury”, the Court concluded that such a rule would result in “interminable delay but add nothing to the assurance of a fair trial”. 350 U.S. at 363-64 , 76 S.Ct. at 408-09 . The Court accordingly held that a constitutional challenge to the evidence supporting a grand jury indictment was generally unavailable, observing that an “indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for a trial of the charge on the merits”. 350 U.S. at 363 , 76 S.Ct. at 408 . See generally 2 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 15.4 (1984). Later, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), the Court rejected a challenge to an indictment allegedly based on evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure. The Court reasoned: The grand jury’s sources of information are widely drawn and the validity of an indictment is n”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 710 So. 2d 846 - State v. Delcambre · 979 So. 2d 469 - State v. Gutweiler

3. “[W]hether the trial court properly quashed defendant’s indictment because of the non-malicious conduct of an assistant district attorney who, without informing defendant he was a suspect in a criminal investigation and without defendant’s attorney’s knowledge or consent, [ 8obtained information and documents from defendant which allegedly led to his indictment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 710 So. 2d 846 - State v. Delcambre