819 So. 2d 705 - Cox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 60 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[O]nly if the appellate court can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Suda v. State · Hicks v. State

2. “In the [capital sentencing] proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to . . . the character of the defendant. . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 So. 3d 810 - Braddy v. State · 965 So. 2d 79 - Franklin v. State

3. “In preparation for the testimony of the witnesses to the appellant's "reward announcement," the trial court granted a defense motion in limine to preclude the State from introducing any evidence of the appellant's statement during his proclamation that he did not care about the consequences of killing the thief, because he was already serving two life sentences. To ensure compliance with the order, the court instructed the State to inform all of its witnesses of the ruling, and the court also did so before each of them testified. All of the State's witnesses complied with the order. During the defense case-in-chief, the appellant's attorneys elicited the testimony of Vincent Maynard, another LCI inmate. After an initial period of neutral direct examination, the defense began to explicitly attempt to blame Maynard for the death of the victim. The defense proffered reverse Williams rule evidence of Maynard's prior crimes, and started to question him in an openly hostile manner, resulting in an argumentative exchange of questions and answers between the examining attorney and witness. Not long after direct examination in the presence of the jury commenced, Maynard responded to a wholly unrelated but hostile line of questioning by saying, "Sir, he has two life sentences already." The defense moved for a mistrial, however, the court denied this motion and gave the following curative instruction: Ladies and gentlemen, you are instructed that the sentence that Mr. Cox was serving at”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 966 So. 2d 337 - Cox v. State