Gray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “According to the allegations of the [defendant’s] motion, after the jury retired to deliberate, the alternate juror spoke to defense counsel as he was walking to the elevator. The alternate juror, who had been released, explained that several jurors felt “extremely” strongly that the defendant was guilty. One juror said [to] the alternate juror,' “[W]hat was the defendant doing walking with a gun at one o’clock in the morning?” The alternate juror mentioned that other jurors felt there was no physical evidence to convict- and that several jurors ' had strong personalities. [[Image here]] The defendant’s allegations suggested that multifile jurors were improperly discussing the case during trial and were expressing opinions as to the defen- dant’s guilt before the close of the evidence. This was not merely an allegation of a lone juror attempting to discuss the case prematurely, as occurred in Reaves [v. State, 826 So.2d 932, 943 (Fla. 2002) ]. Rather, the facts alleged in the defendant’s motion, if true, would constitute an agreement among multiple jurors to disregard their'oaths and deliberate prematurely.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nichol Phelps v. State

2. “A party who has reason to believe that the verdict may be subject to legal challenge may move the court for an order permitting an interview of a juror or jurors to so determine. The motion shall be filed within 10 days after the rendition of the verdict, unless good cause is shown for the failure to make the motion within that time. The motion shall state the name of any juror to be interviewed and the reasons that the party has to believe that the verdict may be subject to challenge. After notice and hearing, the trial judge, upon a finding that the verdict may be subject to challenge, shall enter an order permitting the interview, and setting therein a time and a place for the interview of the juror or jurors, which shall be conducted in the presence of the court and the parties. If no reason is found to believe that the ■verdict may be subject to challenge, the court shall enter its order denying permission to interview.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 227 So. 3d 194 - Dowd v. State

3. “[N]either the allegation in the affidavit nor the statement made in the hearing indicate that jurors had discussed" the case and formed an opinion as to guilt before the close of evidence. Had the statement been, for example, that two of the jurors indicated they were going to find the Defendant guilty if she did not testify, then that statement would have been sufficient to require a juror interview of at least the alternate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nichol Phelps v. State