Fiore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he similarity of the prior act and the charged offense remains part of a court's analysis in determining whether to admit the evidence in two ways. First, the less similar the prior acts, the less relevant they are to the charged crime, and therefore the less likely they will be admissible. Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403.”

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

2. “". . . the similar fact evidence became a central feature of the trial. . . . Greater emphasis was placed on the [collateral offenses] than was placed on the charged offense. . . . A majority of the testimony related to these collateral crimes. [The victim's] testimony was sandwiched between the testimony of K.C. and K.D., and, in closing, the prosecutor continually addressed all three offenses."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 978 So. 2d 217 - Woodard v. State

3. “a significant lack of similarity between the charged offense and K.D.'s allegations,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 978 So. 2d 217 - Woodard v. State