Gonzalez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1) A law enforcement officer, a person engaged in cooperation with a law enforcement officer, or a person acting as an agent of a law enforcement officer perpetrates an entrapment if, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of a crime, he induces or encourages and, as a direct result, causes another person to engage in conduct constituting such crime by employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such crime will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it. (2) A person prosecuted for a crime shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his criminal conduct occurred as a result of an entrapment. The issue of entrapment shall be tried by the trier of fact.”

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

2. “under Hunter, 586 So.2d at 319 and Cruz 465 So.2d at 522 . [4] new entrapment statute codifies the subjective test ... § 777.201. The objective test articulated in Cruz was abolished. Gonzalez v. State, 525 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Lopez, 522 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). See also House of Representatives Committee on Criminal Justice Staff Analysis, June 27, 1989), at 177 (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 597 So. 2d 842 - Lewis v. State

3. “Partial inaudibility or unintelligibility is not a ground for excluding a recording if the audible parts are relevant, authenticated, and otherwise properly admissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 634 So. 2d 187 - Daniels v. State