459 So. 2d 246 - Lockett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

cited by 8 later decisions

states following

October 2001

most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2001

8 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mapp v. Ohio · Brown v. Illinois · Dunaway v. New York · North Carolina v. Butler

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“(1) the offense charged and that offered to be proved is so connected as to constitute one transaction, or (2) where it is necessary to identify the defendant, or (3) where it is material to prove motive and there is an apparent connection or relation between the act proposed to be proved and that charged, or (4) where the accusation involves a series of criminal acts which must be proved to make out the offense, or (5) where it is necessary to prove scienter or guilty knowledge.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. McFee v. State · Stringer v. State
“The Court in Brown then set forth several factors which it regarded as critical to determining whether a confession obtained by an illegal arrest was the product of free will. Those factors are: (1) The giving of Miranda warnings. (2) The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession. (3) The presence of intervening circumstances. (4) The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. (5) Any other circumstances that seem relevant. The United States Supreme Court repeated these factors in Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) and Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 , 102 S.Ct. 2664 , 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982). In Hall v. State, 427 So.2d 957 (Miss. 1983), this Court has had occasion to recognize and apply the holding in Brown.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 495 So. 2d 475 - Seales v. State
“I understand, but I don't understand if I should have a lawyer or not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 585 So. 2d 773 - Kuykendall 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.