Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 So. 3d 77 - Nelson v. State

73 So. 3d 77 - Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jones v. State · 768 So. 2d 1037 - Occhicone v. State · 490 So. 2d 927 - Maxwell v. Wainwright · Sochor 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““With regard to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, witness availability is integral to a movant’s allegations of prejudice. See Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2004). When a witness is unavailable to testify, trial counsel is not automatically ineffective for his or her failure to present that witness. See White v. State, 964 So.2d 1278, 1286 (Fla.2007). In such instances, due to the unavailability of the witness, a defendant cannot establish deficient performance or prejudice. See Nelson, 875 So.2d at 583 . There are many reasons for a witness’s unavailability, ranging from the assertion by the witness of his or her right to remain silent, or the inability to locate witnesses or serve them with a subpoena. See id. n. 3. Furthermore, even if a witness was available to testify and counsel was deficient in not presenting his or her testimony during trial, counsel is not ineffective if that testimo ny would have been cumulative to other evidence presented, because such cumulative evidence removes a defendant’s ability to establish prejudice. See Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 377 (Fla. 2007). In a defendant’s postconviction motion, if he or she alleges that counsel was deficient for the failure to call a witness, he or she must establish that the witness was available to testify. See Nelson, 875 So.2d at 583 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If the trial court -3- denies a cause challenge, counsel may . . . remove a venire member through the utilization of a peremptory challenge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.