764 So. 2d 511 - Reed v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 681 So. 2d 521 - Hoops v. State · 568 So. 2d 1173 - Roundtree v. State · 475 So. 2d 1136 - Johnson v. State · 585 So. 2d 753 - Reynolds v. State · 492 So. 2d 1281 - Watts 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whether the manifest necessity standard has been met turns on the facts and circumstances of each case. The supreme court has recognized several examples where a declaration of a mistrial would likely be a manifest necessity: failure of a jury to agree on a verdict; a biased or otherwise tainted jury; improper separation of the jury; where jurors showed an unwillingness to follow the court’s instructions. The question here is whether the jury was biased or tainted beyond cure as a result of [seeing Hampton in handcuffs and in the holding cell].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A mistrial is not the inevitable result every time the jury is permitted to hear inadmissible evidence. The trial court is in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of the improper evidence and decide whether a mistrial is necessary or whether the prejudice can be cured by admonishing the jury to disregard it.”
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.