Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 844 So. 2d 629 - Conahan v. State

844 So. 2d 629 - Conahan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

24 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Ring v. Arizona · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · Peoples v. United States · 559 So. 2d 187 - State v. Law

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

  1. “The record reflects that in light of Conahan’s presentation of mitigating evidence, the prosecutor commented in his closing argument that there was no evidence presented regarding other possible mitigators. He pointed out that Co-nahan did not show that he suffered from prior child abuse or drug abuse, or had a history of mental difficulties and mistreatment. In making such a remark, the prosecutor was commenting upon the lack of certain mitigating evidence. His comment did not implicate the defendant’s right to remain silent; rather, it concerned the dearth of mitigating evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Conahan killed Montgomery in the same manner in which he attempted to kill Stanley Burden. Montgomery and Burden were similar physically; neither one completed high school; both had difficulty in maintaining employment and were in need of money when Conahan solicited them to pose nude for money in a secluded wooded area. Both were tied to a tree and suffered similar abrasions and ligature wounds.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he sole exception to this general rule is where the unobjected-to comments rise to the level of fundamental error. In order for an error to be fundamental and justify reversal in the absence of a timely objection, "the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.