Mosely v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 492 So. 2d 1322 - Lavado v. State · 469 So. 2d 917 - Williams v. State · 707 So. 2d 664 - Sanders v. State · 683 So. 2d 600 - Miller v. State · 724 So. 2d 1232 - Walker v. State
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although trial judges are vested with broad discretion in regulating the extent and scope of the examination of prospective jurors, such discretion must be tempered with the right of both the state and defense to examine jurors orally on their voir dire which is guaranteed by Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.300(b). In construing this rule, we recently held that the trial court cannot question prospective jurors on critical areas such as the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and the right to silence, and then preclude counsel from further individual examination under the guise that it would be repetitive .... The issue of misidentifieation was the core or critical issue in this case, and we conclude that the defendant was effectively denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by virtue of the trial court’s restriction on the individual questioning of the venire panel about his sole defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harrison v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.