824 So. 2d 1 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 27 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 896 So. 2d 584 - Clark v. State · 889 So. 2d 623 - Lewis v. State

2. “"`The narrowness of the plain error rule is a reflection of the importance, indeed necessity, of the contemporaneous objection rule to which it is an exception. . . . "`The contemporaneous objection rule . . . promotes the salutary interest of making the trial the main event. Failure to enforce it "tends to detract from the perception of the trial of a criminal case . . . as a decisive and portentous event." Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 . . . (1977). Moreover, requiring timely objections allows the trial courts to develop a full record on the issue, consider the matter, and correct any error before substantial judicial resources are wasted on appeal and then in an unnecessary retrial. See United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d 945, 948-49 (11th Cir.1988). A full record and a prior decision in the district court are essential ingredients to our substantive review of the issues — they flesh out an issue in a way the parties' briefs may not. "`"In the absence of plain error . . . it is not our place as an appellate court to second guess the litigants before us and grant them relief they did not request, pursuant to legal theories they did not outline, based on facts they did not relate." Adler v. Duval County School Bd., 112 F.3d 1475 , 1481 n. 12 (11th Cir.1997). Because the contemporaneous objection rule is essential to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial process, we have stressed that "the plain error test is difficult to meet." U”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 896 So. 2d 584 - Clark v. State · 972 So. 2d 737 - Ex Parte Walker

3. “"MR. WILLIAMS [defense counsel]: We moved [sic] for a mistrial, based on the arguments of the State and the fact that the State has commented on the fact that the defendant did not testify. "MR. WILKES [assistant district attorney]: I didn't comment. That was his statement. "MR. WILLIAMS: Judge, he said the defendant had no one rebutted [sic] the things in the statement. "MR. WILKES: I didn't say `they didn't' rebut; I said, `no one.' "THE COURT: Well, I deny your motion for a mistrial, but you're getting mighty close, Kenny. Stay away from that. "MR. WILKES: Well, we would ask the Court if the Court feels like I have gotten close, to maybe ask the jury to— "THE COURT: I don't know. If I talk to the jury about it, I will probably further compound the problem. "MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I agree with that, but we would still move for a mistrial. "THE COURT: That's denied. "Now, go ahead."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. J.E. v. State · 997 So. 2d 335 - JE v. State