814 So. 2d 322 - Mora v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although we find that no error occurred here, we are concerned with the problems inherent in a trial record that does not adequately reflect a defendant’s waiver of his right to present any mitigating evidence. Accordingly, we establish the following prospective rule to be applied in such a situation. When a defendant, against his counsel’s advice, refuses to permit the presentation of mitigating evidence in the penalty phase, counsel must inform the court on the record of the defendant’s decision. Counsel must indicate whether, based on his investigation, he reasonably believes there to be mitigating evidence that could be presented and what that evidence would be. The court should then require the defendant to confirm on the record that his counsel has discussed these matters with him, and despite counsel’s recommendation, he wishes to waive presentation of penalty phase evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 42 So. 3d 177 - Twilegar v. State

2. “Here, the trial court engaged Mora in an extensive colloquy before allowing him to give a closing statement. During that colloquy, the trial court asked Mora what issues he was going to talk about, limited Mora to new issues not raised by [defense counsel], and suggested to Mora again not to give a closing statement. Mora stated that his attorney had advised him not to give a closing argument.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 71 So. 3d 848 - McCray v. State

3. “whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Commitment of Reilly