Cardona v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[1] The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have ensued.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Floyd v. State · 857 So. 2d 861 - Wright v. State

2. “Brady requires the State to disclose material information within the State’s possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant. See Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 508 (Fla.2003). Errors involving the suppression of evidence in violation of Brady present issues of constitutional magnitude. See Cardona v. State, 826 So.2d 968, 973 (Fla.2002). As expressed in Brady, the rule is premised on the principle that reversal is warranted when the State fails to disclose to the defense exculpatory or impeaching evidence that prejudices the defendant, thereby undermining confidence that he received a fair trial: The principle ... is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.... A prosecution that withholds evidence ... which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant. That casts the prosecutor in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice.... Cardona, 826 So.2d at 972 -73 (quoting Brady, 373 U.S. at 87-88, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 39 So. 3d 275 - Rodriguez v. State · 894 So. 2d 161 - Mordenti v. State

3. “contain[ed] material inconsistencies on several key points not addressed at trial that could have seriously undermined [the witness's] credibility,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 980 So. 2d 451 - Tompkins v. State · 894 So. 2d 161 - Mordenti v. State