89 So. 3d 209 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A party objecting to the other side’s use of a peremptory, challenge on. racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike. At this point, the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike.to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step 2). If the explanation is facially race-neutrál and the court believes that, given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained (step 3). The court’s- focus in step 3 is not on the reasonableness of the explanation but rather its genuineness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spencer v. State

2. “Decisional law demonstrates that tool-mark identification in the context of ballistics has been used in the criminal context since at least 1929, and in Florida since at least 1937.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Amaro v. State

3. “well-documented history of tool-mark identification over the last century”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Amaro v. State