Supreme Court of Florida· 3/11/1993

Rose v. State

Citations

617 So. 2d 291
1993 WL 64839

How courts have described this case

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

holding that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to obtain expert in eyewitness identification when, instead, he pointed out inconsistencies between the eyewitnesses' testimony as well as differences in the trial testimony of each witness and his or her earlier statements
finding counsel was not ineffective for failing to contact defendant’s family members to testify because defendant indicated to counsel his family would not be helpful
\The trial court has broad discretion in determining the applicability of mitigating circumstances and may accept or reject the testimony of an expert witness.\
same where psychologist determined defendant had an antisocial personality disorder and not organic brain disorder
\The trial court has broad discretion in determining the applicability of mitigating circumstances and may accept or reject the testimony of an expert witness.\
trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call family members where defendant told counsel that he had not had contact with his family for a number of years and that his family's testimony would not be helpful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

22 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.