Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Lovell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 1, 2008No. 3D07-1386Published

1ConcurrenceSchwartz, Senior Judge

(specially concurring).

The defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in informing the jury, after it had reported a deadlock, that

you have been deliberating for approximately three hours and 40 minutes, and you need to continue to deliberate. You can retire to the jury room.

He claims that reversal is required by what he says is the “all fours” decision in Goodwin v. State, 717 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). This is not the case.

Even assuming that Goodwin is correct on its own facts,1 it is decisively distinguishable. The defendant claims that the vice of the innocuous…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Allen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Warren v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  3. Washington v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  4. Tejeda-Bermudez v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  5. Goodwin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API