163 W. Va. 752 - State v. Milam’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 169 W. Va. 121 - State v. Persinger (1982), 165 W. Va. 741 - State v. Craft (1980)
3 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Burks v. United States · Lego v. Twomey · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Greene v. Massey
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There exists in the trial of an accused a presumption of sanity. However, should the accused offer evidence that he was insane, the presumption of sanity disappears and the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Federal and this State’s Constitutions forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"While a criminal trial is unwarranted when pretrial psychiatric examinations clearly reveal by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused at the time the crime was committed, was not criminally responsible for his acts, W.Va.Code, 27-6A-l [1977] et seq. provides no mandatory pretrial mechanism for resolving the issue of criminal responsibility; consequently, adjudication of criminal responsibility before trial is entirely within the combined discretion of the trial court judge and the prosecuting attorney, since absent a motion to nolle an indictment by the prosecuting attorney based on persuasive pretrial medical reports, the trial court judge has no discretion to deny the State a trial by jury on the issue of criminal responsibility.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.