Edwards v. Thigpen’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 454 So. 2d 468 - Stringer v. State (1984), Foster v. State (1994)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 Enmund v. Florida · Gray v. Lucas · 413 So. 2d 1007 - Edwards v. State · Baker v. State · 155 So. 2d 491 - Dyer v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the issue were raised on appeal then it has been previously litigated and therefore is barred from consideration in the present proceeding... [and][i]f it were not raised on appeal, then the petitioner has accepted the trial court's determination of the issue ... Failure to specifically assign such an error in the direct appeal before this Court resulted in petitioner's acceptance of the trial court's determination of this issue; therefore it is now barred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pruett v. Thigpen · Dunn v. Dunn“Any such points raised in the application which have been previously litigated and decided at trial or on appeal are res judicata and barred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1) Edwards urged the court to grant him relief because of the exclusion for causé of jurors with scruples against the death penalty. The exclusion of one of the jurors (Hibler) has been argued on direct appeal and the Mississippi Su preme Court refused to review their original adjudication; however, the court held that as to the exclusion of the other juror (Hopkins), that Edwards had not assigned that on direct appeal and accordingly had accepted the trial court’s determination and was barred from seeking relief on that basis in his error coram nobis petition. 2) Edwards asserted that there had been a systematic exclusion of Blacks and those with scruples against the death penalty. This has become known as the “conviction prone” jury issue. This issue was raised at trial; however, it was not assigned as an error on direct appeal. The court held that he was barred from raising that issue on coram nobis. 3) The third ground which Edwards assigned complained of the introduction by the prosecutor of evidence of a separate and distinct crime. This was raised at trial and on direct appeal and the court held that it was barred as a previously litigated matter. 4) The fourth assignment claimed that the prosecutor made inflammatory and prejudicial remarks during closing argument. The court held that regardless of whether this ground was urged on direct appeal under the rubric of effective assistance of counsel or whether the petitioner failed to so argue it, it would be barred becaus”
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.