17 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miele v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See id. | 1 | 1 |
Bedford v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Bedford, 589 So. 2d at 252 . | 1 | 1 |
Grau v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Concepcion v. State, 188 So.3d 5, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“The record, however, demonstrates that the State’s arguments were responsive, and were directed to the evidence, and were not personal attacks of defense counsel or improper denigration of the defendant’s theory of defense. | 1 | 1 |
Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2015See Thomas, 890 So.2d at 401 . | 1 | 1 |
Garron v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Brooks, 762 So.2d at 898-905 (holding that numerous instances of improper prosecutorial comment, including improper arguments with regard to merged aggravators; improper statements referring to mitigation as "flimsy" and "phantom"; and a personal attack on the credibility of defense counsel, constituted reversible error when "[v]iewed in totality"); Garron, 528 So.2d at 358-59 (finding reversible error for egregious prosecutorial misconduct which included impermissible statements in violation of the rule against placing the jury in the position of the victim, statements that the death pena | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Brooks, 762 So.2d at 898-905 (holding that numerous instances of improper prosecutorial comment, including improper arguments with regard to merged aggravators; improper statements referring to mitigation as "flimsy" and "phantom"; and a personal attack on the credibility of defense counsel, constituted reversible error when "[v]iewed in totality"); Garron, 528 So.2d at 358-59 (finding reversible error for egregious prosecutorial misconduct which included impermissible statements in violation of the rule against placing the jury in the position of the victim, statements that the death pena | 1 | 1 |
Cuillo v. Cuillogreen1 sentence2003See Cuillo v. Cuillo, 621 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that the former wife did not waive her attorney-client privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husband's representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney). | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Burkegreen1 sentence2003"A system that depends on an adversary's *253 ability to uncover falsehoods is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct must be discouraged in the strongest possible way." Cox , at 47. | 1 | 1 |
Hufham v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See e.g., Hufham v. State, 400 So.2d 133, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Landry v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Landry v. State, 620 So.2d 1099, 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 465 (Fla.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Briggs v. Stategreen1 sentence1993See Briggs v. State, 455 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (it is both improper and unethical for either the prosecutor or defense counsel to attack the personal integrity and credibility of opposing counsel). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sheperd
green
2 sentences1992State v. Sheperd, 479 So.2d 106 (Fla.1985). 1989State v. Shepard, 479 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1985); White v. State, 377 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1979). | 2 | 1989–1992 |
Fulton v. State
green
1 sentence2018While improper impeachment of a defense witness may have a “spill-over effect” on the credibility of the defense where the witness is a friend or relative, see Fulton, 335 So. 2d at 285 , where there is no connection between the witness and the defendant, the harmful “spill-over” effect is not present. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Derival v. State
green
1 sentence2015The state further relies on Derival v. State, 58 So.3d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), in pointing out that appellant made no equivocal responses that the jury could *1271 have misconstrued as an incriminating statement. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Berkowitz v. State
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2003Smith, 799 So.2d at 424 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Thompson v. State
green
1 sentence1996Landry v. State, 620 So.2d 1099, 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 465 (Fla.1976). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence1989State v. Shepard, 479 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1985); White v. State, 377 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1979). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Harris v. New York
green
2 sentences1985The state, while not retracting its confession of error, contended that the statement could be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility under the doctrine announced in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). 1985The state, while not retracting its confession of error, contended that the statement could be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility under the doctrine announced in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1980Jones v. State, 385 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Lassiter v. State, 118 So.2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Lassiter v. State
neutral
1 sentence1980Jones v. State, 385 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Lassiter v. State, 118 So.2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.