Spaziano v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Recantation by a witness called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial. Brown v. State, 381 So.2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118 , 101 S.Ct. 931 , 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956). In determining whether a new trial is warranted due to recantation of a witness's testimony, a trial judge is to examine all the circumstances of the case, including the testimony of the witnesses submitted on the motion for the new trial. [ Bell, 90 So.2d at 705 ]. "Moreover, recanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and it is the duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true. Especially is this true where the recantation involves a confession of perjury." [ Id. ] (quoting Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 561 , 185 So. 625, 630 (1938) (Brown, J., concurring specially)). Only when it appears that, on a new trial, the witness's testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict will a new trial be granted. Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Consalvo v. State · 708 So. 2d 271 - Stano v. State

2. “[r]ecantation by a witness called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Spaziano

3. “evidence would `probably' affect the verdict.”

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