due diligence requirement in Florida

2018This would of course be a serious misstatement of the purpose of Brady , which imposes the important requirement on prosecutors "to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case," Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 , 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), and to produce that evidence if it is material.

2018This would of course be a serious misstatement of the purpose of Brady , which imposes the important requirement on prosecutors "to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case," Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 , 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), and to produce that evidence if it is material.

2018As I explained in Pittman v. State , 90 So.3d 794 (Fla. 2011) : [T]he majority could be read to approve of a due diligence requirement in Brady when Brady has no such requirement. ...

2018As l explained in Pittman v. State, 90 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 2011): [T]he majority could be read to approve of a due diligence requirement in Brady when Brady has no such requirement. . . .

2014Id. (internal citations omitted).

2005Id. (quoting Grammer v. Grammer, 80 So.2d 457, 460-61 (Fla.1955) (quoting McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770 , 108 So. 820, 831 (1926))).

2012Accordingly, the postconviction trial court erred in summarily denying this claim on the basis that the pleading failed to sufficiently satisfy the due diligence requirement at that stage of the proceeding. 26 So.3d at 528-29 .

2010Accordingly, the postconviction trial court erred in summarily denying this claim on the basis that the pleading failed to sufficiently satisfy the due diligence requirement at that stage of the proceeding. 26 So.3d at 528-29 .

2007Addressing the attorney's due diligence requirement, the court further held that trial counsel was not required to conduct a public records search of venire members prior to trial. 814 So.2d at 344-45 .

2002Second, I hope Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla.2002), was not intended to eliminate the due diligence requirement of De La Rosa altogether.

1990Gaither v. Anderson, 103 Fla. 1190 , 135 So. 840 , 139 So. 587 (1932).

1990Gaither v. Anderson, 103 Fla. 1190 , 135 So. 840 , 139 So. 587 (1932).

1988Ragen, 434 So.2d at 908 ; Jackson, 416 So.2d at 10 .

1983Jackson v. State, 416 So.2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); In re Estate of Hill, 294 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

2026We noted that we would consider “trial counsel’s failure to run a juror’s litigation history as one of several factors under a due diligence inquiry.” Id.

2025In considering whether counsel had exercised the required due diligence under the civil rule, the court noted that "there has been no case explicitly stating a subpoena is the only way to satisfy the due diligence requirement." Id. at 651 .

2017Tricam Indus., 100 So.3d at 114 , quashed on other grounds, Coba, 164 So.3d 637 (quashing portion of decision analyzing inconsistent verdict); see also Pagano, 112 So.3d at 625 (suggesting that it was time “to rethink how the courts handle juror non-disclosure,” and suggesting that due to online availability of public records', searches could be conducted during voir dire).

2017Id. at 911 .

2017Tricam Indus., 100 So.3d at 114 , quashed on other grounds, Coba, 164 So.3d 637 (quashing portion of decision analyzing inconsistent verdict); see also Pagano, 112 So.3d at 625 (suggesting that it was time “to rethink how the courts handle juror non-disclosure,” and suggesting that due to online availability of public records', searches could be conducted during voir dire).

2010Butler III, 10 So.3d at 1160 n. 2.

2010This due diligence requirement “compels the defendant to allege and prove that affirmative steps were taken in an attempt to discover the effect of the plea on his or her residency status.” Id.

2007Weekly D26 , 949 So.2d 1054 , 2006 WL 3733310 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.20, 2006) (addressing daughter's suit against funeral home and recognizing that section 497.005 does not impose a due diligence requirement on the funeral home and that the applicable statutes dictate the funeral home's duties); Andrews v. McGowan, 739 So.2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (lineal descendant sued funeral homes after one home released the decedent's remains to another without the personal representative's authorization); Jackson v. Rupp, 228 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (next of kin sued medical examiner).

2007Weekly D26 , 949 So.2d 1054 , 2006 WL 3733310 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.20, 2006) (addressing daughter's suit against funeral home and recognizing that section 497.005 does not impose a due diligence requirement on the funeral home and that the applicable statutes dictate the funeral home's duties); Andrews v. McGowan, 739 So.2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (lineal descendant sued funeral homes after one home released the decedent's remains to another without the personal representative's authorization); Jackson v. Rupp, 228 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (next of kin sued medical examiner).

2007Weekly D26 , 949 So.2d 1054 , 2006 WL 3733310 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.20, 2006) (addressing daughter's suit against funeral home and recognizing that section 497.005 does not impose a due diligence requirement on the funeral home and that the applicable statutes dictate the funeral home's duties); Andrews v. McGowan, 739 So.2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (lineal descendant sued funeral homes after one home released the decedent's remains to another without the personal representative's authorization); Jackson v. Rupp, 228 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (next of kin sued medical examiner).

2007Weekly D26 , 949 So.2d 1054 , 2006 WL 3733310 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.20, 2006) (addressing daughter's suit against funeral home and recognizing that section 497.005 does not impose a due diligence requirement on the funeral home and that the applicable statutes dictate the funeral home's duties); Andrews v. McGowan, 739 So.2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (lineal descendant sued funeral homes after one home released the decedent's remains to another without the personal representative's authorization); Jackson v. Rupp, 228 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (next of kin sued medical examiner).