648 So. 2d 692 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 28 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]nce Thompson had obtained the $1,500 check from [the victims], there was little reason to kill them other than to eliminate the sole witnesses to his actions”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 803 So. 2d 629 - Hertz v. State · 803 So. 2d 656 - Looney v. State

2. “Q. [Defense Counsel] But on August 27th, 1986, did you work at the cemetery? A. Yes, sir. I had my crew working at the office that day. Q. Was Mr. Thompson working on that day? A. No. He had quit his job. Q. Did you see Mr. Thompson at the cemetery? A. No. Everybody that appeared there know Mr. Thompson because he was working in my crew at the time. Q. I'm not arguing with you about that, Mr. Smith, and I don't want you to think that I am. Can you just answer this question for me? On August 27th 1986, did you at any point in time while you were working on that day see Charlie Thompson on the grounds of the Myrtle Hill Cemetery? A. My crew have told me he was at that time. I got to explain myself. Q. No sir. Just tell me this: Did you, sir, see Thompson on August 27th at the cemetery? Did you see him? A. No, sir, but my crew did. My crew did. Q. When did your crew see him? A. I was the foreman out there this particular day. They was there working at the office when they seen Mr. Thompson go in there and carry Mr. Swack and Ms. Nancy. They said he had a gun in his pocket. THE COURT: Take the jury out.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 796 So. 2d 511 - Thompson v. State

3. “Although we can sympathize with the defense attorney's frustration in questioning a less than sophisticated witness, it is apparent from the record that this damaging hearsay response was invited by defense counsel's question. We note that the witness had already stated twice that he himself had not seen Thompson when counsel asked the question, "When did your crew see him?" Furthermore, the defense attorney initially told the trial judge that there was no need for a mistrial and that a curative instruction would suffice. The State did not utilize the hearsay testimony at any point throughout the remainder of the trial, and we specifically note no mention of it in final argument. We find that the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial under these circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 796 So. 2d 511 - Thompson v. State