683 So. 2d 600 - Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2018
13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on McKenna v. Nevada · 473 So. 2d 1282 - Stano v. State · 630 So. 2d 1059 - State v. Davis · State v. Johnson · 424 So. 2d 148 - Williams v. State
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] trial judge has “considerable discretion in determining the extent of counsel’s examination of prospective jurors.” Williams v. State, 424 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, this discretion must be exercised in light of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.300(b) which provides that the parties, through counsel, have the right to conduct an examination of each prospective juror. Although the trial judge certainly has the discretion to limit repetitive and argumentative voir dire, a trial judge must allow counsel the opportunity to ascertain latent or concealed prejudgments by prospective jurors. See Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282 , 1285 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093 , 106 S.Ct. 869 , 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.