59 So. 3d 763 - Rimmer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to demonstrate a Brady violation, Rimmer must show that (1) favor able evidence—either exculpatory or impeaching, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the .State, and (3) that because the,evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); see also Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903 , 910 (Fla.2000). To meet the materiality prong, Rimmer must demonstrate a reasonable probability that had the suppressed evidence been disclosed the jury would have reached a different verdict. See Strickler, 527 U.S. at 289 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 . A reasonable probability is- a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. See Way, 760 So.2d at 913 ; see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 . The remedy of retrial for the State’s suppression of evidence favorable to the defense is available when “the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 , 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rimmer v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections · Rimmer v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

2. “Appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness is properly raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1069 (Fla.2000). In order to grant habeas relief on the basis of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, this Court must determine whether the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and, second, whether the deficiency in performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Joseph v. State · 88 So. 3d 85 - Barwick v. State