State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Corresponding to the right of an accused to be given a fair trial is the societal interest in punishing one whose guilt is clear after he has obtained such a trial. It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction. From the standpoint of a defendant, it is at least doubtful that appellate courts would be as zealous as they now are in protecting *Page 781 against the effects of improprieties at the trial or pretrial stage if they knew that reversal of a conviction would put the accused irrevocably beyond the reach of further prosecution. In reality, therefore, the practice of retrial serves defendants' rights as well as society's interest. The underlying purpose of permitting retrial is as much furthered by application of the rule to this case as it has been in cases previously decided."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 991 So. 2d 775 - State v. Hall · 991 So. 2d 782 - Ex Parte Hall

2. “"If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection; may grant a continuance if requested by the aggrieved party; may prohibit the party from introducing evidence not disclosed; or may enter such other order as the court deems just under the circumstances. The court may specify the time, place, and manner of making the discovery and inspection and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 991 So. 2d 775 - State v. Hall · 991 So. 2d 782 - Ex Parte Hall

3. “"`Other courts have considered the question of when a court may dismiss an indictment under its supervisory powers. The Ninth Circuit has held that "[d]ismissal under the court's supervisory powers for prosecutorial misconduct requires (1) flagrant misbehavior and (2) substantial prejudice." United States v. Kearns , 5 F.3d 1251 , 1253 (9th Cir. 1993). It has suggested that prosecutorial conduct might satisfy those requirements even where it would fail to justify dismissal under Brady directly. See [United States v.] Ross , 372 F.3d [1097 ] at 1110 [(9th Cir. 2004)]; United States v. Barrera-Moreno , 951 F.2d 1089 , 1091 (9th Cir. 1991). The Seventh Circuit has adopted a more restrictive approach, holding that a sanction under supervisory powers is only appropriate where the conviction could not have been obtained but for the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. See United States v. Johnson , 26 F.3d 669 , 683 (7th Cir. 1994). At least two other circuits instruct courts to balance a number of factors in their choice of a sanction, including "the reasons for the Government's delay in affording the required discovery, the extent, of prejudice, if any, the defendant has suffered because of the delay, and the feasibility of curing such prejudice by granting a continuance or, if the jury has been sworn and the trial has begun, a recess." United States v. Euceda-Hernandez , 768 F.2d 1307 , 1312 (11th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Wicker , 848 F.2d 1059 , 1061 (10th Cir”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 991 So. 2d 775 - State v. Hall