Mosby v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Gammel v. State (1976), Brown v. State (1981)
43 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 Bruton v. United States · Roberts v. Russell · Russell v. State · Lauderdale v. State · Hays v. State
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It now appears that the use of the cross-implicating confessions in the case at bar is not permissible in a joint trial because of being in violation of the confrontation clause of the federal Sixth Amendment. The answer to the problem seems to be to delete any offending portions of the admissions with reference to a codefendant, if such deletion is feasible and can be done without prejudice, or to grant separate trials.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Patrick v. State · Stewart v. State“A defendant may or may not testify in a case at his own discretion. The fact that a | ^defendant did not testify is not evidence of his guilt or innocence and in fact is no evidence at all and is not to be considered by you in arriving at your verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Donovan v. State · Paulson v. State“This is a familiar instruction. When the accused asks that such a charge be given it is reversible error for the court to deny the request. Cox v. State, 173 Ark. 1115 , 295 S.W. 29 (1927). When, however, the accused objects to such an instruction, a different situation is presented. Our decisions on the point have not been entirely harmonious. We held in Watson v. State, 159 Ark. 628 , 252 S.W. 582 (1923), that the giving of the instruction was prejudicial error, but we took the opposite view in Thompson v. State, 205 Ark. 1040 , 172 S.W.2d 234 (1943). Upon reconsidering the question we have concluded that the instruction ought not to be given against the wishes of the defendant. If the accused is to have the unfettered right to testify or not to testify he should have a correlative right to say whether or not his silence should be singled out for the jury’s attention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Donovan v. State
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.