883 So. 2d 902 - Jacques v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 109 So. 2d 422 - Hamilton v. State · 104 So. 2d 99 - Kellum v. State · McKenzie v. State · 678 So. 2d 910 - Brown v. State · 803 So. 2d 787 - Simmons 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While a judge may take some initiative to clear up uncertainties in the issues in a case, it is error for the judge to make any remark in front of the jury that might be interpreted as conveying the judge’s view of the case or an opinion on the weight, character, or credibility of the evidence. [[Image here]] Regardless of the proper intention of the court in making such remarks, in determining their effect on the jury we must consider that the high position which a judge holds in the scheme of the trial magnifies, in the minds of the jurors, the meaning of comments by the judge, to which he himself may not attach particular importance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walden v. State“comment expresses or tends to express the judge's view as to the weight of the evidence, the credibility of a witness, or the guilt of an accused, it thereby destroys the impartiality of the trial to which the litigant or accused is entitled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.