754 So. 2d 691 - State v. Harbaugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Examining the Rodriguez bifurcated trial process in felony DUI prosecutions in light of Gaudin , we hold that in this bifurcated process the jury, not the judge, must determine the verdict from the evidence presented in the second phase.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. State · 994 So. 2d 960 - Johnson v. State

2. “the trial court shall conduct a separate proceeding without a jury to determine whether the defendant had been convicted of DUI on three or more prior occasions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. State · 994 So. 2d 960 - Johnson v. State

3. “Any other holding would lead to an impermissible result if a jury did not return a guilty verdict on the possession portion of the crime. The government would be precluded from proving an essential element of the charged offense, and the district court would breach its duty to instruct the jury on all the essential elements of the crime charged. [FN 3] Additionally, the district court's bifurcation order might unfairly confuse the jury, prompting it to exercise its power of nullification on the unwarranted belief that the defendant was charged for noncriminal conduct. . . . The bifurcation order removes an element of the crime from the jury's consideration, prevents the government from having its case decided by the jury, and changes the very nature of the charged crime. FN3. Barker misunderstands the fundamental nature of "prejudicial evidence." Evidence is prejudicial only when it has an additional adverse effect on a defendant beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission. A prior conviction is not prejudicial when it is an element of the charged crime. Proof of the felony conviction is essential to the proof of the offense—be it proof through stipulation or contested evidence. The underlying facts of the prior conviction are completely irrelevant under § 922(g)(1); the existence of the conviction itself is not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Syder v. State