992 So. 2d 206 - Welch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A party objecting to the other side's use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike. At this point, the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step 2). If the explanation is facially race-neutral and the court believes that, given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained (step 3).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 So. 3d 1108 - Murray v. State · Spencer v. State

2. “In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition against self-incrimination requires advising a prospective defendant that he has the right to remain silent and also the right to the presence of counsel. 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 481-82 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). After being advised of his rights, if an accused indicates that he wishes to remain silent, “the interrogation must cease.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; see also Edwards, 451 U.S. at 482 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 64 So. 3d 93 - Serrano v. State

3. “As this Court has explained, [ajppellate courts should continue to accord a presumption of correctness to the trial court’s rulings on motions to suppress with regard to the trial court’s determination of historical facts, but appellate courts must independently review mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional issues.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 64 So. 3d 93 - Serrano v. State