780 So. 2d 1040 - Styles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Factually, this case is similar to Roviaro . In both cases, police officers watched an informant purchase drugs from a defendant, the police recovered the drugs soon after the transaction, and the police identified the defendant as the person who delivered the drugs. The Supreme Court in Roviaro required the government to disclose the informant's identity, observing that since the informant was the `sole participant, other than the accused, in the transaction charged,' the informant `was the only witness in a position to amplify or contradict the testimony of government witnesses.' Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that [t]he desirability of calling [the informant] as a witness, or at least interviewing him in preparation for trial, was a matter for the accused rather than the Government to decide. Because the crime in this case involved the delivery of cocaine directly to the informant, this case falls within the exception to the limited informant privilege. . . . If one goal of the privilege is to preserve the anonymity of those helping the police, that aspect is not implicated here. Unlike a tipster who provides information to the police to establish probable cause for a search or arrest, the informant in this case disclosed his identity by coming face to face with the defendant to purchase drugs." [c.o.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 939 So. 2d 338 - Harris v. State · 816 So. 2d 1177 - Foster v. State

2. “"Petitioner's opportunity to cross-examine Police Officer Bryson and Federal Narcotics Agent Durham was hardly a substitute for an opportunity to examine the man who had been nearest to him and took part in the transaction. [The informant] had helped to set up the criminal occurrence and had played a prominent part in it. His testimony might have disclosed an entrapment. He might have thrown doubt upon petitioner's identity or on the identity of the package. He was the only witness who might have testified to petitioner's possible lack of knowledge of the contents of the package that he `transported' from the tree to [the informant's] car. The desirability of calling [the informant] as a witness, or at least interviewing him in preparation for trial, was a matter for the accused rather than the Government to decide."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 939 So. 2d 338 - Harris v. State

3. “`disclosure of a confidential informant is absolutely required where the defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the subject informant.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 939 So. 2d 338 - Harris v. State