Melbourne v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Mr. Mason (defense counsel): Does anyone have alcoholism in their family or any friends who are alcoholics, or anything along those lines? . . . . Mr. Wells: My wife. She died of alcohol. Mr. Mason: What do you do for W.E.S.H. T.V.? Mr. Wells: I work in programming. Whatever you see is whatever I do. Mr. Mason: Do you work nights or do you work days? Mr. Wells: I work days. Mr. Mason: Would you like to serve again? Mr. Wells: I will do what I have to do. . . . . Mr. Bressler (prosecutor): We'd also strike Number 19, your honor. Mr. Mason: Mr. Dewey Wells, the black man, I would raise a Baxter Johans challenge, JOHANS. He's a black man, Number 19. Ms. Munyon: The State has not stricken any black jurors at all. The defense has stricken juror Number 10, Tillman, as well as juror Number 13, which are black. The State accepted both of those jurors. Mr. Bressler: Kelvin McCall was a black juror that the defense struck. Mr. Mason: I have nothing else to say. The Court: Well, I don't see anything in this record to indicate that there's any— that the State in exercising this challenge to a black person is in any way acting in a discriminatory fashion, or singling out Mr. Wells because of his race in its exercise of peremptory challenge. The record should reflect that the defense has excused two peremptory challenges to excuse black males and exercised its exercise of the— Mr. Mason: I've used seven per Kim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Melbourne v. State

2. “The Wright court had expressly upheld four convictions for DUI causing serious bodily injury while reversing the four convictions for driving with suspended license causing serious bodily injury. The Wright court explained simply that driving with a suspended license was a single offense whereas the injuries to four persons warranted the multiple DUI with injuries convictions. Although this analysis isn't very instructive, the Wright court reached a common sense result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 665 So. 2d 1066 - Salazar v. State

3. “If multiple convictions are permitted for DUI manslaughter and DUI with serious bodily injury when multiple victims are involved, there is no reason why the same principle should not apply to driving with a suspended license and causing serious bodily injury to more than one person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 665 So. 2d 1066 - Salazar v. State