755 So. 2d 737 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 494 So. 2d 1143 - Lambrix v. State · 446 So. 2d 1038 - Lusk v. State · 699 So. 2d 629 - Dobson v. State · 462 So. 2d 1075 - Mills v. State · 463 So. 2d 533 - Sydleman v. Benson
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.
“Deciding whether a prospective juror meets the Lusk test is within a trial court's discretion, based upon what the court hears and observes. See Smith v. State, 699 So.2d 629, 635-36 (Fla.1997). As the question of juror competency presents a mixed question of law and fact, the trial court's determination will not be overturned in the absence of manifest error. See id. at 636 ; Mills v. State, 462 So.2d 1075, 1079 (Fla.1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him by the court.”
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.