618 So. 2d 171 - State v. Franklin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the potential for prejudice and the danger of an incomplete record of the trial court's communication with the jury are so great as to warrant the imposition of a prophylactic per se reversible error rule.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 730 So. 2d 667 - Thomas v. State · 831 So. 2d 156 - State v. Merricks

2. “The per se reversible error rule ... exists for two distinct reasons. First, it is clear that due process requires that the defendant and defendant's counsel be afforded the opportunity to be present whenever the trial court communicates with the jury. Ivory [v. State ], 351 So.2d [26] at 28 [(Fla.1977)]. Secondly: Any communication with the jury outside the presence of the prosecutor, the defendant, and defendant's counsel is so fraught with potential prejudice that it cannot be considered harmless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 730 So. 2d 667 - Thomas v. State

3. “After the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they request additional instructions ... they shall be conducted into the courtroom by the officer who has them in charge and the court may give them the additional instructions.... The instructions shall be given ... only after notice to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pittman v. State