Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 So. 2d 392 - McNamee v. State

313 So. 2d 392 - McNamee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2012

8 state decisions

6019751980199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Smith v. State · Cutshall v. State · Clark v. State · Williams 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This instruction in many forms has had a long and variable, if not a capricious, history. We have condemned this instruction in the following cases: Clark v. State, 206 Miss. 701 , 39 So.2d 783 (1949); Parrett v. State, 205 Miss. 651 , 39 So.2d 272 (1949); Coleman v. State, 22 So.2d 410 (Miss.1945); Murphy v. State, 119 Miss. 220 , 80 So. 636 (1919); Vails v. State, 94 Miss. 365 , 48 So. 725 (1909). We have allowed similar instructions in Dunbar v. State, 159 Miss. 603 , 132 So. 748 (1931), and McVay v. State, 26 So. 947 (Miss.1900). i The reasons given by the court to disallow the instruction in the above cases is because it is an instruction upon the weight and worth of the testimony, and because it points out and holds up for inspection a particular part of the evidence so as to emphasize its value. * * * * * * We hold that the instruction was properly refused under the facts in this case. It is a rare case when such an instruction is permissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The Court instructs the Jury that under the law, the defendant is a competent witness in his own behalf, and that the Jury has no right to disbelieve him merely because he is the defendant, and that his testimony is entitled to such weight, faith and credit as the Jury may think proper to give it.”
    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.