736 So. 2d 699 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The fact that the denial of the right to a public trial concerns plain error cognizable for the first time on appeal is best understood with reference to the significance of this right. The right to a public trial has been recognized as arising out of `the distrust for secret trials ... variously ascribed to the notorious use of this practice by the Spanish Inquisition, to the excesses of the English Court of Star Chamber, and to the French Monarchy's abuse of the lettre de cachet.' In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 , 268-269, 68 S.Ct. 499 , 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948). `[A]t the time of the adoption of the Sixth Amendment the common law concept of a public trial had come to be regarded as an essential guarantee against any attempt to employ the courts as instruments of persecution.' United States v. Kobli, 172 F.2d 919, 921 (3d Cir.1949). The several essential purposes served by the public trial guarantee include: `allowing the public to see that a defendant is fairly dealt with, encouraging trial participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, discouraging perjury, and bringing forth witnesses who might not otherwise testify.' Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531, 532 (11th Cir.1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 883 So. 2d 369 - Jones v. State

2. “The appropriate analysis to follow to determine whether a particular case warrants closure is set forth in Waller [v. Georgia , 467 U.S. 39 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)]. There are four prerequisites that must be satisfied before the presumption of openness may be overcome. First, the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; second, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; third, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceedings; and fourth, the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller, 467 U.S. at 47 , 104 S.Ct. at 2215 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 883 So. 2d 369 - Jones v. State

3. “In order to justify any type of closure, whether the closure is total or partial, the court must find `that a denial of such right is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 791 So. 2d 544 - Whitson v. State