782 So. 2d 556 - State v. Poland’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest · State v. Square · 443 So. 2d 1098 - State v. Trosclair · 425 So. 2d 760 - State v. Tanner
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“considerations for the legislative mandate of [grand jury] secrecy clearly are designed primarily for a non-target witness and are not significant when a target of the investigation voluntarily testifies before the grand jury with counsel present.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ll persons having confidential access to information concerning grand jury proceedings”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The reasons underlying this necessity for secrecy are manyfold. Among them are: (1) It promotes freedom in the disclosure of crime; (2) prevents coercion of grand jurors through outside influence and intimidation and thus permits a freedom of deliberation and opinion otherwise impossible; (3) protects the safety and freedom of witnesses and permits the greatest possible latitude in their voluntary testimony; (4) prevents perjury by all persons appearing before the grand jury; (5) prevents the subornation of perjury by withholding facts that, if known, the accused or his confederates might attempt to disprove by false evidence and testimony; (6) avoids the danger of the accused escaping and eluding arrest before the indictment can be returned; and (7) keeps the good name of persons considered, but not indicted, from being besmirched. Thus it may be seen that the secrecy that has from time immemorial surrounded the grand jury sessions is not only for the protection of the jurors and the witnesses, but for the state, the accused, and, as has been said, for society as a whole. Poland, 2000-453 at p. 6, 782 So.2d at 559 , quoting Revere, 94 So.2d at 29-30 .”
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.