Hentz v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he supreme, circuit, chancery and county courts shall have power to [punish] any person guilty of contempt of the court ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 510 So. 2d 123 - Miss. Ass'n of Educators v. TRUSTEES JMSSD · 516 So. 2d 485 - Culpepper v. State

2. “Requiring the defendant here to answer the questions did not expose him to criminal prosecution for the murder of Williamson. He had already pled guilty. His Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or, in the Alternative, to Withdraw Guilty Plea came months after the term of court expired wherein he had pled and sentence had been entered. The petition must be considered as one under the Post-conviction Collateral Relief Act. It is interesting to note that the petition alleges that a plea bargain agreement was violated because he was charged with grand larceny as a habitual offender in Lafayette County. There is now outstanding an instanter capias on that charge. Assuming the allegation to be true, the state could not prosecute him for the grand larceny and it does not affect the verity of the plea to murder. The Constitutional Fifth Amendment privilege is intended to protect the witness and has no proper application when the witness is not in danger of prosecution or conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 503 So. 2d 262 - Hentz v. State

3. “His [the defendant's] voluntary offer of testimony upon any fact is a waiver as to all other relevant facts because of the necessary connection between them all. Under this rule the accused by taking the witness stand in his own behalf waives the constitutional guaranty against compulsory self-incrimination not only as to matters about which he has given testimony in chief; but also concerning any matter pertinent to the issue on trial regardless of the extent of the direct examination, and cannot then refuse to testify to any fact which would be competent evidence in the case if proved by any other witness. The waiver by the accused is not partial. Having once cast aside the cloak of immunity, he may not resume it at will whenever cross-examination may be inconvenient or embarrassing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 558 So. 2d 834 - Moore v. Moore