Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davilagreen2 sentences2010State v. Davila, 570 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that the defendant failed to establish by sworn proof that disclosure of the confidential informant’s identity was necessary to a legally recognized defense). 2008State v. Davila, 570 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 2d *1258 DCA 1990) (holding that the defendant failed to establish by sworn proof that disclosure of the confidential informant's identity was necessary to a legally recognized defense). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Mashkegreen2 sentences2010“A bare allegation that the defendant cannot prepare his case without disclosure is insufficient.” State v. Mashke, 577 So.2d 610, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). 2008"A bare allegation that the defendant cannot prepare his case without disclosure is insufficient." State v. Mashke, 577 So.2d 610, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). | 4 | 4 |
Visger v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Cf. Tafolla v. State, 162 So. 3d 1073, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Counsel may be ineffective in advising defendant not to testify at trial, where the defendant’s proposed testimony would have been the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to the charges.”); Loudermilk v. State, 106 So. 3d 959, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“In addition, we have found that where the defendant’s proposed testimony was the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to his charges, counsel was deficient in advising silence instead of the defendant testifying as to that defense.”); Visger 2015See, e.g., Loudermilk, 106 So.3d at 960 (citing Visger v. State, 953 So.2d 741, 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Zamoragreen2 sentences2014A bare allegation that failure to disclose would impede the ability to prepare a defense is not sufficient to require disclosure; the defense must be supported by sworn proof.” (citation omitted)); State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (providing that “Florida courts have ordered the disclosure of a confidential informant only in cases where the defendant asserted a legally recognized defense to the crime charged, supported that defense with sworn proof, and showed that the confidential informant was a material witness to this defense”). 1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (disclosure is warranted when defendant asserts a legally recognized defense and supports the defense with sworn proof); Garcia v. State, 548 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (in camera review required when defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit); State v. Zamora, supra (disclosure only ordered where defendant asserts a legally recognizable defense, supported by sworn proof); Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (before defendant establishes right to in camera review, defendant must at least swear to the facts upon which the motion for disclosu | 2 | 5 |
Jose Bribiesca Tafolla v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2025Cf. Tafolla v. State, 162 So. 3d 1073, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Counsel may be ineffective in advising defendant not to testify at trial, where the defendant’s proposed testimony would have been the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to the charges.”); Loudermilk v. State, 106 So. 3d 959, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“In addition, we have found that where the defendant’s proposed testimony was the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to his charges, counsel was deficient in advising silence instead of the defendant testifying as to that defense.”); Visger 2023“Counsel may be ineffective in advising defendant not to testify at trial, where the defendant’s testimony would have been 5 the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to the charges.” Tafolla v. State, 162 So. 3d 1073, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). | 2 | 4 |
Loudermilk v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Cf. Tafolla v. State, 162 So. 3d 1073, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Counsel may be ineffective in advising defendant not to testify at trial, where the defendant’s proposed testimony would have been the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to the charges.”); Loudermilk v. State, 106 So. 3d 959, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“In addition, we have found that where the defendant’s proposed testimony was the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to his charges, counsel was deficient in advising silence instead of the defendant testifying as to that defense.”); Visger 2015See, e.g., Loudermilk, 106 So.3d at 960 (citing Visger v. State, 953 So.2d 741, 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harklerodegreen2 sentences2014He also alleged that Confidential Source Two is “without question a material witness” as he was used to purchase cocaine from Powell, which gave rise to the possession of cocaine charge lodged against him. 7 “When a defendant seeks disclosure because a confidential informant’s identity or communications are allegedly relevant and helpful to his defense, the defendant must allege a legally recognized defense to the crime charged and support the defense with sworn evidence.” State v. Harklerode, 567 So.2d 982, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). 1990Although such a defense sounds in entrapment, which is a legally recognized defense, see State v. Harklerode, 567 So.2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), none of the defense motions expressly mention the defense of entrapment. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pautiergreen2 sentences1990See also State v. Pautier, 548 So.2d 709, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (disclosure is warranted where defendant asserted a legally recognized defense and supported the defense with sworn proof). 1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (disclosure is warranted when defendant asserts a legally recognized defense and supports the defense with sworn proof); Garcia v. State, 548 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (in camera review required when defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit); State v. Zamora, supra (disclosure only ordered where defendant asserts a legally recognizable defense, supported by sworn proof); Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (before defendant establishes right to in camera review, defendant must at least swear to the facts upon which the motion for disclosu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. State
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (disclosure is warranted when defendant asserts a legally recognized defense and supports the defense with sworn proof); Garcia v. State, 548 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (in camera review required when defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit); State v. Zamora, supra (disclosure only ordered where defendant asserts a legally recognizable defense, supported by sworn proof); Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (before defendant establishes right to in camera review, defendant must at least swear to the facts upon which the motion for disclosu | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Acosta
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (once a legally recognized defense had been alleged and supported, the proper procedure would be to hold an in camera hearing); Garcia v. State, supra (trial court required to conduct in camera hearing when defendant files sworn motion alleging facts demonstrating the necessity for disclosure); State v. Zamora, supra (even when technically deficient, if motion comes close to establishing right to disclosure, in camera review is required to determine if the confidential informant's testimony would be helpful to the defense); State v. Acosta, supra , (appropria | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Beasley v. State
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (disclosure is warranted when defendant asserts a legally recognized defense and supports the defense with sworn proof); Garcia v. State, 548 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (in camera review required when defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit); State v. Zamora, supra (disclosure only ordered where defendant asserts a legally recognizable defense, supported by sworn proof); Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (before defendant establishes right to in camera review, defendant must at least swear to the facts upon which the motion for disclosu | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (once a legally recognized defense had been alleged and supported, the proper procedure would be to hold an in camera hearing); Garcia v. State, supra (trial court required to conduct in camera hearing when defendant files sworn motion alleging facts demonstrating the necessity for disclosure); State v. Zamora, supra (even when technically deficient, if motion comes close to establishing right to disclosure, in camera review is required to determine if the confidential informant's testimony would be helpful to the defense); State v. Acosta, supra , (appropria | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.