371 So. 2d 733 - State v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2016
13 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 United States v. Jorn · United States v. Dinitz · United States v. Wilson · United States v. Josef Perez · Gori v. United States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The defendant consents thereto; (2) The jury is unable to agree upon a verdict; (3) There is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict reversible as a matter of law; (4) The court finds that the defendant does not have the mental capacity to proceed; (5) It is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law; or (6) False statements of a juror on voir dire prevent a fair trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a ground for arrest of judgment under Article 859...,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(d) When a mistrial is improperly ordered, the defendant must object at the time and reserve a bill of exceptions. Otherwise, he will be deemed to have acquiesced in the court's ruling. Art. 841. (e) This article must be considered in the light of Art. 591, which reads as follows: "Art. 591. Double jeopardy; definition No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense, except, when on his own motion, a new trial has been granted or judgment has been arrested, or where there has been a mistrial legally ordered under the provisions of Article 775 or ordered with the express consent of the defendant." The effect of the articles taken together is as follows: (1) Mistrials, without the consent of the defendant, are permitted under certain limited circumstances such as inability of the jury to agree, physical impossibility to proceed, etc. (2) All other dismissals of the jury prior to verdict without the defendant's consent will not be mistrials at all, even though the court may so label them, but will be illegal dismissals, and in such cases the principles of double jeopardy will come into operation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Joseph
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.