984 So. 2d 1050 - Salts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, as you recall, on the 28th of September we had a hearing in this matter at which time the defense attorney who stood up, I believe it was Mr. Michael Thorne, and represented to this court that they would not be asking for severance in this case between the defendants. Salts v. State, 984 So.2d 1050,1062-63 . XY [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, my response to that is that the law requires that the defendants be addressed individually, that the prosecution bring it to the Court’s attention, that they then be addressed individually. The attorney can’t waive the conflict of interest. They have to be addressed individually and asked whether they waive the conflict of interest and consent of one lawyer representing both of them. [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, this matter was brought to the attention of Your Honor as we met in chambers, and the matter was thoroughly discussed, and the defense attorney discussed this matter with his clients. [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, if he’s going to argue that, then I’d like to put the clients on the stand and asked them whether it’s ever been addressed with them. But it has to be addressed by the court in open court, not outside the court. [THE COURT]: You can issue an instanter subpoena for Mr. Thorne and get him to testify about this matter. Now if were going to have the hearing, were going to put Mr. Thorne on the stand, too, and find it out what the discussion was. My recollection is that all this was aired in chambers”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 696 F. Supp. 2d 639 - Salts v. Epps

2. ““Nothing conclusively indicates that Michael or Marie had interest that were at first to each other, or that Waide should have engaged in some course of conduct that would have been adverse to the interest of one or the other. The Salts merely suggest that some of the evidence indicated the possibility of a conflict between Michael and Marie. We note that Marie took the stand and testified, essentially that neither she nor Michael had ever embezzled the insurance money. The Saltses have the best shown a potential conflict, which does not require that the court make any inquiry into the chart representation.” Salts, 984 So.2d at 1063 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 696 F. Supp. 2d 639 - Salts v. Epps

3. “show concrete facts that demonstrate the particular prejudice to the defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 995 So. 2d 146 - Jones v. State