Skip to main content

Brooks v. State

Citations

  • 762 So. 2d 879
  • 2000 WL 674581

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that prosecutorial denigration of a defendant’s mitigation by suggesting it is “phantom” is improper
  • concluding that trial court abused its discretion in overruling defense counsel’s objection “that the prosecutor impermissibly argued ‘prosecutorial expertise’ ”
  • concluding that trial court abused its discretion in overruling defense counsel’s objection “that the prosecutor impermissibly argued ‘prosecutorial expertise’ ”
  • holding that, to prove trafficking, drug dealer or law enforcement officer may offer expert testimony as to weight pursuant to a visual inspection 5 if proper predicate has been laid
  • holding that, in analyzing whether improper closing arguments require reversal, the court “considers the cumulative effect of objected-to and unob-jected-to comments when reviewing whether a defendant received a fair trial”
  • finding that a prosecutor's repeated characterization of mitigating circumstances as \excuses\ was \clearly an improper denigration of the case offered by [the defendants] in mitigation.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

142 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

103 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.