698 So. 2d 219 - Ex Parte Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(d) Counsel appointed in [indigent] cases ... shall be entitled to receive for their services a fee to be approved by the trial court. The amount of such fee shall be based on the number of hours spent by the attorney in working on such case and shall be computed at the rate of $40.00 per hour for time expended in court and $20.00 per hour for time reasonably expended out of court in the preparation of such case. The total fees to any one attorney in any one case, from the time of appointment through the trial of the case, including motions for new trial, shall not, however, exceed $1,000.00, except as follows: In cases where the original case involves a capital offense or a charge which carries a possible sentence of life without parole, the limits shall be $1,000.00 for out-of-court work, plus payment for all in-court work, said work to be billed at the aforementioned rates. Counsel shall also be entitled to be reimbursed for any expenses reasonably incurred in such defense to be approved in advance by the trial court. Retrials of a case shall be considered a new case."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 972 So. 2d 771 - Wright v. Childree · 717 So. 2d 6 - Bui v. State

2. “" Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), allows the prosecution in a capital case to strike for cause those potential jurors who would automatically vote against imposing capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at trial or those potential jurors whose attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant's guilt."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bryant v. State · 820 So. 2d 842 - Johnson v. State

3. “" Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), allows the prosecution in a capital case to strike for cause those potential jurors who would automatically vote against imposing capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at trial or those potential jurors whose attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant's guilt. In Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), the Supreme Court held that in a capital case the prosecutor may exclude venirepersons whose views would `prevent or substantially impair' their performance of their duty as ... jurors. "In Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 , 112 S.Ct. 2222 , 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), the Supreme Court held that it violated the requirements of due process to allow the prosecution to strike for cause persons who are opposed to the death penalty while not allowing the defense to exclude for cause those venirepersons who are predisposed to impose capital punishment regardless of the evidence presented. Thus, a capital defendant may challenge for cause any venireperson who would automatically vote to impose death if the defendant was convicted of a capital crime."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 889 So. 2d 1 - Duke v. State