574 So. 2d 873 - Heard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “‘“Judges repeatedly issue arrest warrants on the basis that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person named in the warrant has committed it. Judges also preside at preliminary hearings where they must decide whether the evidence is sufficient to hold a defendant for trial. Neither of these pretrial involvements has been thought to raise any constitutional barrier against the judge’s presiding over the criminal trial and, if the trial is without a jury, against making the necessary determination of guilt or innocence.’ “Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 56 , 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1469 , 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). “ ‘A trial judge’s participation in a previous proceeding in a case does not ipso facto render him disqualified to preside at trial. A judge is not disqualified to sit in a trial on the merits by-having heard and decided a preliminary proceeding in the same cause. So, the fact that he conducted the preliminary examination which resulted in the prosecution of the accused does not, in the absence of any showing as to any personal bias or prejudice, disqualify him from presiding at the trial. Nor is a judge disqualified to try a criminal case because he had ordered the grand jury which indicted the defendant, and had presided throughout the grand jury proceedings, and had passed on numerous preliminary motions.’ “46 Am.Jur.2d Judges § 181 (1969). “Thus, absent a showing of prejudice, an issuing magistrate may properly serve as the trial ju”

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