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

1. “prejudiced by the incomplete transcript because his appellate attorney is incapable of reviewing the State's closing argument to determine the presence or absence of reversible error. Jones is not represented on appeal by trial counsel. Cf. Velez v. State, 645 So.2d 42, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(affirming despite omissions in voir dire transcript where defendant was represented on appeal by trial counsel and court determined that assigned errors were harmless as a matter of law). We do not speculate that error occurred, but we have no reconstructed record or stipulation to show that such error did not occur. " [e.s.]); Swain v. State, 701 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Blasco v. State, 680 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(reversing because of omission of rebuttal testimony from record on ground that "we do not know, and are not capable of knowing, whether any reversible error was committed during”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 902 So. 2d 166 - Vargas v. State

2. “In this case, we conclude that the State’s closing argument is necessary, and its omission compels us to grant a new trial.... Jones is prejudiced by the incomplete transcript because his appellate attorney is incapable of reviewing the State’s closing argument to determine the presence or absence of reversible error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bodie v. State

3. “preclud[ing] appellate counsel from evaluating [these] portion[s] of the trial for error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 867 So. 2d 510 - Martone v. State