Guzman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 34 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n particular, the testimony of both Dr. Steiner and Rogers supports the circuit judge’s finding. Dr. Steiner, the medical examiner, supported Cronin’s testimony at trial by testifying that the samurai sword and the survival knife could have caused the victim’s injuries. Rogers, the jailhouse witness who shared a cell with Guzman, testified that Guzman admitted committing the crime. It is also undisputed that, shortly after the murder, Guzman sold the victim’s ring to Leroy Gadson, a known drug dealer, for drugs and cash. This evidence of Guzman’s guilt, wholly independent of Cronin, supports her testimony. In light of this independent and corroborating evidence, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the false testimony regarding the $500 reward could have affected the judgment of the factfinder”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guzman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · Guzman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

2. “Both Cronin and [Detective Sylvester] testified falsely at trial that Cronin received no benefit for her testimony against Guzman other than being taken to a motel rather than jail when she was arrested. In fact, the State paid Cronin $500, a significant sum to an admitted crack cocaine addict and prostitute. The knowledge prong is satisfied because the knowledge of the detective who paid the reward money to Cronin is imputed to the prosecutor who tried the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guzman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · Guzman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

3. “(1) the prosecutor presented or failed to correct false testimony; (2) the prosecutor knew the testimony was false; and (3) the false evidence was material.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Troy Merck, Jr. v. State of Florida