619 So. 2d 1044 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[STATE], Sir, it’s not uncommon for victims of a crime like this to remember things, evidence later? [DEFENSE], Objection as to relevancy. [COURT]. Overruled. Well. Maybe you want to qualify it before I let you go into that area. [STATE]. Sir, you have been in law enforcement 20 years— [DEFENSE], Excuse me. I object to what other victims in other crimes experienced. It has no relevancy to this case. These victims were here. Other victims are not here. [STATE]. It’s directly relevant on their ability to give a description. [COURT]. I’ll overrule the objection. [STATE]. You have been a law enforcement officer 20 years you said? A. Correct. Q. You have come in contact with a lot of armed robberies? A. Yes. Q. And victims of crimes such as this and violence such as this? A. That’s correct. Q. As such you have become aware of descriptions that victims give at the scene, correct? A. That’s correct. Q. There may be later descriptions or other evidence that they might remember, correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Isn’t it true it’s not unusual for them to remember additional evidence as time goes on? A. That’s true. Q. Different than what they might remember at the scene— A. Yes. Q. —when they are still affected by the crime? A. That is true.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Calixte v. State · Cyprian v. State