638 So. 2d 220 - State v. Leon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT: ... I understand from the bailiff that you’re having some problems with the verdict sheet. I guess the first verdict sheet, that is, dealing with the distribution of a controlled dangerous substance. Is that correct? THE FOREMAN: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Let me go over it. The first — The first part is if you find that the defendant is guilty of distributing cocaine within a thousand feet of property used for school purposes — if you find him guilty of that, you check that part. The next one is, you find him guilty of distributing a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, but not in the school zone, then you would check that one. All right. If you find neither one of these applies, you could find him guilty of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute the cocaine. In other words, he hadn’t done it, but he had possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. The next one, which is — Each one gets a little less serious. The next one is guilty of attempted possession of cocaine. And the next one of guilty of possession of cocaine and the next one after that is guilty of attempted possession. Does that help you any or have I— THE FOREMAN: Your Honor, we take one vote then? There’s only one item to be voted on? | laTHE COURT: Right. For each — You have three sheets. One vote, on each sheet. In other words, you only have three separate charges. What may be confusing you is that if he’s not guilty of the more serious charge, he could be guilty of a lesser”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 702 So. 2d 832 - State v. Cole

2. “Even assuming that the trial court made the same mistake in its general charge, the form provided jurors with several alternatives to a verdict of guilty as charged if they had been so inclined. Those alternatives included simple possession and attempted simple possession of cocaine. The jurors rejected those alternatives when they returned their verdict of guilty as charged and, given the underlying credibility choices that verdict reflected, the evidence at trial fully supported their determination. Under these circumstances, speculation that jurors might have returned the second responsive verdict provided by law if it had been listed correctly on the verdict form does not amount to a showing that the mistake rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair or the result unreliable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 702 So. 2d 832 - State v. Cole

3. “[T]he essential elements of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute would also support a verdict of attempted possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. Additionally, the incorrect responsive verdict given to the jury was the first responsive verdict to the crime charged. Therefore, because the elements of the crime charged and incorrectly stated responsive verdict were so intertwined and the responsive verdict was the next applicable verdict, there is a reasonable probability that, had the jury been given the correct responsive verdict that there may have been a different outcome.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 702 So. 2d 832 - State v. Cole