286 So. 2d 823 - Bickcom v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1993
6 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 Dozier v. State · Sprinkle v. State · Hilbun v. State · Brockman v. State · McInnis 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have held in different cases that jurors cannot impeach their own verdict by testifying as to the motives and influences which affected their deliberations. McInnis v. State, 213 Miss. 491 , 57 So.2d 137 (1952); Sprinkle v. State, 137 Miss. 731 , 102 So. 844 (1925). These cases, and others which prohibit jurors from impeaching their own verdict, do not require that jurors may not be permitted to testify as to the fact of the misconduct of others in their presence or hearing, or as to outside influences brought to bear upon them. While we think the technically correct application of the rule in this case would not have allowed the jurors to answer the question propounded them by the district attorney as to whether the presence of Deputy Dealton influenced their verdict, no reversible error occurred upon the facts and circumstances before us.”
1 later decision 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.