838 So. 2d 1073 - Murray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[R]elevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is an indication of probable tampering.” Peek v. State, 395 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla.1980); see also Dodd v. State, 537 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In seeking to exclude certain evidence, [the movant] bears the initial burden of demonstrating the probability of tampering. Once this burden has been met, the burden shifts to the proponent of the evidence to submit evidence that tampering did not occur.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. State · 30 So. 3d 619 - State v. Jones

2. “the proponent of the evidence is required to establish a proper chain of custody or submit other evidence that tampering did not occur.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 3 So. 3d 1108 - Murray v. State · Taylor v. State

3. “It would not be unreasonable to conclude that appellant used these cards to conceal his true identity so as to further evade capture and prosecution. The use of false identification, therefore, constituted additional evidence relevant to appellant’s guilty knowledge at the time of his arrest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 So. 3d 31 - Partin v. State