846 So. 2d 405 - Trepal v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 921 So. 2d 490 - Johnson v. State · 868 So. 2d 498 - Guzman v. State

2. “In the present case, the circuit court found that the following statements made at trial by Martz were improper for the following reasons: — Martz stated: “And when you pour that [i.e., diphenylamine or DP] into a solution which contains a nitrate you get a blue color.” (The circuit court, however, found as follows: when you pour DP into a solution that contains an oxidizing ion — which may or may not be a nitrate — you get a blue color.) • — ■ Martz stated: “Based on that test [i.e., the DP test] I concluded that thallium nitrate was added to the Coca-Cola.” (The circuit court, however, found as follows: all that could be concluded based on the DP test — in conjunction with the other tests — was that the test results were consistent with the presence of thallium nitrate.) — Martz stated: “No nitrates were present in the unadulterated Coca-Cola.” (The circuit court, however, found as follows: ion chromatography or IC testing showed the presence of a substance that could have been a nitrate in the unadulterated Coke.) — “In this particular case, when I tested the Coca-Cola [via IC] the results were positive for the nitrate ion.” (The circuit court, however, found as follows: the IC test can show only the presence of an oxidizing ion — which may or may not be a nitrate.) — Martz was asked: “Did you test each of the samples on the ion chromatograph to determine whether nitrate was present?” He responded: “Yes, I did.” (The circuit court, however, found as follows: Martz did not ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trepal v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

3. “Regardless of the above improprieties in the testimony of Martz (and regardless of the improprieties in his testing practices and omissions in his testimony), the following conclusions nevertheless can properly be drawn from the present record: [1.] Peggy Carr died from ingesting thallium (of an undetermined type). [2.] Of the various forms of thallium, only thallium sulfate and thallium nitrate (sub-group I) dissolve in Coca-Cola without changing the appearance of the Coke or foaming out of the bottle. [3.] The brown bottle found in Trepáis garage contained (a) thallium, and (b) an oxidizing ion consistent with the presence of a nitrate. [4.] Five empty Coca-Cola bottles found in the Carr household contained thallium (of an undetermined type). [5.] Tests on two unopened bottles of Coca-Cola found in the Carr household (a) showed the presence of thallium, and (b) yielded results that were consistent with the presence of a nitrate. [6.] Tests on a third unopened bottle of Coca-Cola found in the Carr household (a) showed the presence of thallium, and (b) yielded results that were consistent with the presence of an oxidizing ion (which may or may not have been a nitrate).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trepal v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections