728 So. 2d 758 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
March 2009
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jones v. Howard · Bottoson v. Florida · 109 So. 2d 7 - Singer v. State · 446 So. 2d 1038 - Lusk v. State · 477 So. 2d 553 - Hill 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“discretion is abused where the court refuses to excuse for cause a prospective juror who responds with equivocal or conditional answers, thus raising a reasonable doubt as to whether the prospect possesses the state of mind necessary to render an impartial decision. Even a cold transcript can reveal equivocal or conditional responses not reflective of a prospect’s final detached determination to serve as a fair and impartial juror. A reviewing court may therefore, from time to time, and as to jury equivocations, find itself with a better view than the trial court because of the greater amount of time available to it for rendering decisions. Such is the situation in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when asked whether he would be able to follow the trial court's instructions). Because Salgado had to use a peremptory challenge to exclude juror Barrett, he was later forced to accept another objectionable juror onto the panel because he had run out of additional peremptory challenges.”
1 later decision 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.