Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 3.05, the posing of hypothetical questions to the venire panel during voir dire, which requires a juror to pledge a particular verdict, is prohibited. Specifically, this Court has stated that attorneys are prohibited “from attempting to elicit promises from the jury promising that under a hypothetical set of circumstances, they will return a specific verdict.” Robinson v. State, 726 So.2d 189, 191-92 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App. 1998) (citing West v. State, 553 So.2d 8, 21-22 (Miss.1989)). However, “a hypothetical question does not create per se reversible error where the prosecutor does not ‘specifically request a verdict during voir dire.’” Id. (quoting Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 339 (¶ 116) (Miss.1997)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 So. 3d 237 - Hollins v. State

2. “Anderson’s flight was never fully explained .... Anderson has failed to provide an independent explanation for why he was hiding under his house on the day of his arrest. Anderson attempts to argue on appeal that he was hiding because he feared he was being “set up.” However, there is nothing in the record to support this argument. The only reason that Anderson gave at trial for hiding under the house was that he was a convicted felon and afraid of going back to jail.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State