694 So. 2d 708 - Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Brown’s area of expertise was never clearly defined by the trial judge.... Degrees in psychology and counseling do not necessarily qualify one to testify to [the evidence at issue].... The problem in this case is that Brown did not demonstrate, in the record, a sufficient study [of the area in question].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 So. 3d 199 - Chavez v. State · 116 So. 3d 617 - Brilhart v. Brilhart ex rel. S.L.B.

2. “"Jurors are not generally equipped to determine whether a particular theory of conviction submitted to them is contrary to law— whether, for example, the action in question is protected by the Constitution, is time barred, or fails to come within the statutory definition of the crime. When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error. Quite the opposite is true, however, when they have been left the option of relying upon a factually inadequate theory, since jurors are well-equipped to analyze the evidence. As the Seventh Circuit has put it: `It is one thing to negate a verdict that, while supported by the evidence, may have been based upon an erroneous view of the law; it is another to do so merely on the chance— remote, it seems to us, that the jury convicted on a ground that was not supported by adequate evidence when there existed alternative grounds for which the evidence was sufficient.'" [e.s., c.o.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 711 So. 2d 624 - Tricarico v. State

3. “[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 739 So. 2d 568 - Ramirez v. State