581 So. 2d 31 - Derrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “During the penalty phase James was allowed to testify over objection that Derrick told James that he had killed Sharma and that he would kill again. Derrick claims that this testimony was irrelevant to the penalty phase and impermissibly showed lack of remorse and the possibility that Derrick would kill again. The state argues that this testimony was relevant to show that the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated without any pretense of moral or legal justification. The state further argues that the testimony was not impermissibly used to show lack of remorse since the prosecutor never argued lack of remorse and the judge did not instruct the jury on lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. We agree with Derrick that James's testimony was erroneously admitted and constitutes reversible error. The statement was not relevant to show Derrick's guilt because guilt is not at issue in the penalty phase of a trial. Therefore, the state must show that the statement is relevant to an issue properly considered in the penalty phase. We do not construe James's testimony to support the factor of cold, calculated, and premeditated without any pretense of moral or legal justification because all that Derrick admits in the statement is that he did kill Sharma. The statement makes no reference to a plan to kill Sharma, nor to a lack or justification for the murder. The testimony was not relevant to any other aggravating factor. See Pope v. State, 441 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Fla.1983) ("[L]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 703 So. 2d 454 - Kormondy v. State

2. “After the defense had presented two witnesses, they announced that they were calling Derrick to testify. At this point, the prosecutor announced that if Derrick testified that he had not committed the murder, he planned to call in rebuttal an inmate named Randall James. The prosecutor said that, after the first defense witness began to testify, he had received a note informing him that Detective Vaughn had just been told by James that Derrick told James that he had killed Sharma and that he would kill again. The prosecutor offered to make James available for a deposition. Derrick's attorneys, who were public defenders, requested a recess to determine what to do because their office also represented James and they were therefore concerned about the implications of cross-examining James. The prosecutor indicated that it was his understanding that James was willing to waive the attorney-client privilege. After the recess, the judge removed the public defender's office from representing James in an effort to alleviate the conflict. Continuing to express concern over the dual representation, Derrick's attorneys made a motion for mistrial which was denied. They then decided to rest without calling Derrick as a witness. The jury found Derrick guilty. Derrick's attorneys took James's deposition while the jury was deliberating.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 983 So. 2d 443 - Derrick v. State

3. “THE COURT: ... . And so I ask each of you if anyone has in fact read any articles pertaining to this case since we were last here in court, if they would please hold up their hand. THE JURY: (No affirmative response.) THE COURT: Okay. So all of you followed those directions and didn't read anything pertaining to this case or have any discussions with anyone about anything pertaining to this case since we've last left; is that correct? THE JURY: (Affirmative response.) THE COURT: Have any of you heard anything about Mr. Emanuel Johnson since we've last left this courtroom? THE JURY: (No affirmative response.) THE COURT: So would I be correct, then, in stating that any verdict that you would render in this case would be an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial? THE JURY: (Affirmative response.) THE COURT: Is that correct? THE JURY: (Affirmative response.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 660 So. 2d 648 - Johnson v. State