581 So. 2d 874 - State v. Prince’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"The law is well-settled that in order to establish a due process violation due to preindictment delay, a defendant must show `(1) that the delay caused actual prejudice to the conduct of his defense, and (2) that the delay was the product of deliberate action by the government designed to gain a tactical advantage.' United States v. Lindstrom , 698 F.2d 1154 , 1157-58 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Butler , 792 F.2d 1528 , 1533 (11th Cir.) cert. denied, Waites v. United States , 479 U.S. 933 , 107 S.Ct. 407 , 93 L.Ed.2d 359 (1986). See also United States v. Marion , 404 U.S. 307 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971) `A defendant is charged with a heavier burden of proof in showing a preindictment delay due process violation than in showing a denial of his speedy trial rights.' Stoner ."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. D.B. v. State · DB v. State

2. “"`Where the possibility of prejudice derives from pre-indictment delay, the defendant in a criminal case must first resort to the applicable statute of limitations. [United States v. Marion , 404 U.S. 307 ] at 323, 92 S.Ct. [455] at 464[, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971)]. Only where the applicable statute of limitations has failed to offer relief for pre-indictment delay, are claims of actual prejudice in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ripe for judicial consideration. The Supreme Court has declared, however, that the "Due Process Clause has a limited role to play" in protecting against the prejudice of pre-indictment delay. [United States v.] Lovasco , 431 U.S. [783] at 789, *Page 662 97 S.Ct. at 2048 [, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)]. See also Marion , 404 U.S. at 320 , 92 S.Ct. at 463 ; United States v. Harrigton , 543 F.2d 1151 [(5th Cir. 1976)] (absent showing of substantial prejudice amounting to Fifth Amendment due process violation, prosecution is controlled by statute of limitations); United States v. Sample , 565 F. Supp. 1166 , 1174 (E.D.Va. 1983) (statute of limitations is a legislatively determined safeguard against potential prejudice while due process is safeguard against actual prejudice).'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 728 So. 2d 657 - State v. Sealy · 775 So. 2d 248 - RDH v. State

3. “actual prejudice, not the mere possibility of prejudice, and that the delay caused substantial prejudice to [the defendant's] rights to a fair trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. DB v. State · 775 So. 2d 248 - RDH v. State