Velasquez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist. [[Image here]] Likewise we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches.... We reject any suggestion that the procedure established by rule 3.190(c) should control so as to require denial of a motion whenever a material issue of fact appears.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Yaqubie

2. “Rule 3.190(c)(4) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the filing of a motion to dismiss when “[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not estab lish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.” Subsection (d) allows for the state to traverse or demur the motion and for the court to receive evidence on any issue of fact. It then provides that “[a] motion to dismiss under subdivision (c)(4) of this rule shall be denied if the state files a traverse that, with specificity, denies under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 3.190(d).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Yaqubie

3. “By defining “criminal prosecution” to include the arrest, detention, charging, or prosecution of the defendant, the statute allows for an immunity determination at any stage of the proceeding. Created to eliminate the need to retreat under specified circumstances, the statute authorized the immunity determination to be made by law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries. In enacting the statute, however, the legislature did not restrict the time frame for determining immunity, but rather provided a time continuum stretching across the entire criminal process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackie Dale Reagan, Kathy Reagan vs Mark Mallory