862 So. 2d 705 - Armstrong v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 985 So. 2d 1181 - LOUISIAS v. State · 990 So. 2d 565 - Pierre v. State

2. “We further note the error in Armstrong's assertion that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge more specific elements of DNA testing, such as autoradiograms and population substructuring, through a Frye hearing. This trial occurred in 1991, six years prior to this Court's clarification of the Frye test in Brim v. State, 695 So.2d 268 (Fla.1997), that each stage of the DNA process, i.e., the methodology for determining DNA profiles, as well as the statistical calculations used to report the test results, are subject to the Frye test. Armstrong's trial counsel cannot be found ineffective for not demanding the satisfaction of a more complex test than was required by the law at the time of trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 959 So. 2d 702 - Cherry v. State

3. “This Court will only review those claims actually presented to the court below and thus will not consider the modified versions of these claims under ineffective assistance analysis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 969 So. 2d 294 - Lawrence v. State