855 So. 2d 33 - Duest v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “clearly satisfies the mandates of the United States and Florida Constitutions”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 875 So. 2d 359 - Davis v. State · 862 So. 2d 679 - Henry v. State

2. “We have previously rejected claims under Apprendi and Ring in cases involving the aggravating factor of a previous conviction of a felony involving violence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Winkles v. State · 916 So. 2d 750 - Holland v. State

3. “Duest asserts that the testimony in the new penalty phase by medical examiner Dr. Ronald Wright as to the manner of the victim’s death constitutes material, exculpatory evidence unlawfully withheld by the State.... Duest claims that this change in testimony shows that the assailant left the victim alive and therefore calls into question the intent to kill, requiring a new trial on his guilt of first-degree murder. We conclude that Duest’s challenge to the murder conviction, which became final in 1985, is not properly before this Court in an appeal from the reimposition of a death sentence after the previous death sentence was vacated. Duest did not object to the testimony below, instead impeaching Dr. Wright on his change in testimony from 1983 to 1998. Nor has Duest filed a motion for post-conviction relief asserting that the change in testimony constitutes either undisclosed exculpatory evidence or newly discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial. The absence of a pending motion for postconviction relief distinguishes this case from Way v. State, 630 So.2d 177 (Fla.1993), in which this Court reversed the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief raising a Brady claim and withheld ruling on the direct appeal from resentencing pending disposition of the postconviction motion. Id. at 179 . In recognition of Duest’s efforts to raise this issue during the direct appeal, our affirmance is without prejudice to Duest raising the issue in the trial court via Florida”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 So. 3d 734 - Duest v. State