218 So. 2d 436 - Peeples v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he fact that a witness changes his testimony after the trial is not alone an adequate ground for granting a new trial or a writ of error coram nobis. Dolan v. State, 195 Miss. 154 , 13 So.2d 925 (1943) [The witnesses subsequently retracted their statements]; Powers v. State, 168 Miss. 541 , 151 So. 730 (1933); Carraway v. State, 167 Miss. 390 , 148 So. 340 (1933). A writ of error coram nobis will only issue in cases such as the one at bar when the prosecuting officials knowingly use perjured testimony to obtain a conviction. Dolan v. State, supra. A trial court has wide discretion in granting new trials and may consider all the relevant facts in reaching its decision. King v. State, 254 Miss. 917 , 183 So.2d 494 (1966) and Blade v. State, 240 Miss. 183 , 126 So.2d 278 (1961). A court will usually deny a new trial based on recanting testimony where it is not fully satisfied regarding the truthfulness of the testimony. The determination should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Recanting testimony has been shown to be extremely unreliable and should be approached with suspicion. A meticulous study of the record and briefs convinces us that the trial judge was amply justified in refusing to accept the veracity of the altered testimony. ( 218 So.2d at 438-439 ).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walls v. State · Franklin v. State