Raines v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is no showing in the way of evidence that defendant’s rights were prejudiced but trials should not be conducted in a way that defendant had good reason for the belief that he was deprived of fundamental rights. The opportunity was open for tampering with the jury and the temptation to do so was such that we are not convinced that the appellant’s trial was conducted with that degree of fairness and security that the bill of rights contemplates. A fifteen hours absence under no restraint whatever leaves too much room to question the bona fides of everything that took place during that time, particularly when one defendant was acquitted and the other was convicted on the same charge and evidence. It imposes too great a burden on defendant to produce evidence of prejudice to his rights under such circumstances. We think this error calls for reversal.” [e.s.]”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Armstrong v. State · Diaz v. State

2. ““Rule 3.370. Regulation and Separation of Jurors (a) Regulation of Jury. After the jurors have been sworn they shall hear the case as a body and, within the discretion of the trial judge, may be sequestered. (b) Separation after Submission of Cause. Unless the jurors have been kept together during the trial the court may, after the final submission of the cause, order that the jurors may separate for a definite time to be fixed by the court and then reconvene in the courtroom before retiring for consideration of their verdict.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 472 So. 2d 1303 - Franklin v. State · 498 So. 2d 1353 - Busquet v. State

3. “"The rule seems to be well settled that an officer cannot be charged and convicted of an act that is entirely outside the scope of his legal duties. This court is committed to the doctrine that any one who corruptly offers, gives or receives anything of value to influence the receiver's official action, is guilty of bribery."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 277 So. 2d 1 - Nell v. State · 266 So. 2d 404 - Nell v. State