789 So. 2d 1105 - Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Chastine , this court disqualified a trial judge who passed a note to the prosecutor giving the attorney strategy tips. 629 So.2d at 295 . Similarly, in J.F., this court reversed where a trial judge “assumed the role of the prosecutor by directing a witness for the state to obtain additional evidence” and sua sponte continued a hearing pending results of a fingerprint examination. 718 So.2d at 252. In Asbury v. State, 765 So.2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), this court, citing J.F. and Chastine , determined that a trial court judge became “an active participant by prompting the State to present evidence and by sua sponte recalling witnesses and then asking them questions.” 765 So.2d at 965 . See also Lyles v. State, 742 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (finding that the trial court committed fundamental error by sua sponte ordering defendant’s fingerprints and bifurcating hearing to allow additional testimony). In McFadden v. State, 732 So.2d 1180, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), this court found reversible error where the trial court assisted “an unprepared state attorney” by inviting the state to reopen its case after the defendant had moved to dismiss because there had not been any identification of the defendant and the state had not established that the defendant had been informed of the conditions of probation.”

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

2. “"It is apparent from the record that the trial court departed from its position of neutrality by prompting the prosecutor to have the witness identify the scar and tattoos on appellant's forearm in front of the jury. But for the court's prompting during the sidebar conference, the prosecutor would not have embarked on that line of questioning. Based on these facts, the trial court reversibly erred because it became an active participant by `prompting the State' to present evidence of appellant's tattoos and scars."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 831 So. 2d 808 - Evans v. State

3. “The law in Florida expressly prohibits a judge from becoming an advocate for either party's position.”

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