State v. Mayfield’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Schrock (1984), State v. Jewell (1972)
4 federal appellate · 38 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 Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Mooney v. Holohan · White v. Ragen · State v. Whitener · State v. Hollman
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Absence of affirmative statement in the transcript that the jury was sworn furnishes no factual support for [the defendant]^ contention that it was not. [The defendant’s statement that the jury was not sworn stands alone, and is, in our opinion, insufficient to overcome the contrary presumption. But if indeed the jury was not sworn, that was a fact known to [the defendant] during the trial and which he should then and there have called to the attention of the trial [court]. His contention, made for the first time more than eight years afterwards, comes too late. One may not take his chance of a favorable verdict and, after an unfavorable one, raise an objection that should have been made before the verdict was rendered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The credibility of newly discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for new trial is a matter for determination by the circuit judge to whom it is offered. In him, not this court, resides the power to weigh such evidence; and his judgment thereabout will not be disturbed except for error of law or abuse of discretion. State v. Corn, 224 S. C. 74, 77 S. E. (2d) 354 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morrison · State v. Mercer““A motion for a new trial on after-discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Clamp, 225 S. C. 89, 80 S. E. (2d) 918 . And the movant must show that the evidence upon which it is based: (1) is such as would probably change the result if a new trial is had; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not by the exercise of due diligence have been discovered before the trial; (4) is material to the issue; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fowler
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.