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.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lavado v. Stategreen2 sentences2019If defense counsel knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, “the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of [excessive use of force].” Lavado v. State, 492 So. 2d 1322, 1323 (Fla. 1986). 1996See *1083 Lavado v. State, 492 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1986) ("[i]f he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication"); see also Tenon v. State, 545 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (where trial involved charge of cocaine possession, it was error for trial court to refuse to dismiss for cause a juror who said that his bias against cocaine might "slip back in," even though he eventually said that he would follow the court's instructions on th | 4 | 4 |
Lavado v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The Supreme Court quoted Judge Pearson’s dissenting opinion in Lavado v. State, 469 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), that “ ‘[i]f he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication.’ ” Id. 2015The Supreme Court quoted Judge Pearson’s dissenting opinion in Lavado v. State, 469 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), that “ ‘[i]f he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication.’ ” Id. | 2 | 4 |
Barnhill v. Stategreen1 sentence2017In Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 846 (Fla. 2002), this Court explained how such a question was critical to the defendant’s right to a fan- trial: If counsel knows nothing more of the jurors, the single thing defense counsel must ascertain is whether the prospective jurors can fairly and impartially consider the defense offered by the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Tenon v. Stategreen1 sentence1996See *1083 Lavado v. State, 492 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1986) ("[i]f he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication"); see also Tenon v. State, 545 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (where trial involved charge of cocaine possession, it was error for trial court to refuse to dismiss for cause a juror who said that his bias against cocaine might "slip back in," even though he eventually said that he would follow the court's instructions on th | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Green v. State, 602 So.2d 1306, 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. State
green
1 sentence1999As Judge Pearson pointed out in his dissent, "[i]f he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication. " Lavado v. State, 469 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). [emphasis supplied] See Walker v. State, 724 So.2d at 1232 ; Chandler v. State, 744 So.2d at 1061 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Perry v. State
green
1 sentence1999Unlike also, for example, a juror's experience as the victim or having been accused of a crime, cf. Perry v. State, 675 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), her ability to pass on this so-called defense, practically and logically would remain the same regardless of whether she had ever herself been misidentified (and therefore regardless of what her answer to counsel's question on the subject). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Chandler v. State
green
1 sentence1999As Judge Pearson pointed out in his dissent, "[i]f he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication. " Lavado v. State, 469 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). [emphasis supplied] See Walker v. State, 724 So.2d at 1232 ; Chandler v. State, 744 So.2d at 1061 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.