512 So. 2d 679 - Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2017
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 308 So. 2d 71 - Newell v. State · 330 So. 2d 591 - Sharplin v. State · 435 So. 2d 674 - Lee v. State · Burt v. State · 483 So. 2d 343 - Odom 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“will result in reversal of a subsequent conviction only where it is shown that the accused experienced some untoward consequence flowing directly from denial of counsel.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Evans v. State · Brooks v. State“particularly sensitive to the danger that a supplemental instruction might cause a jury to single out and focus upon the point there presented and give it undue importance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Shaw v. State · Williams v. State“If the trial judge feels that there is a likelihood that the jury might reach a verdict, he may return the jury for further deliberations by simply stating to the jurors: "Please continue your deliberations," or he may give the following instruction set forth in the tentative draft of Mississippi Mode Jury Instructions: Criminal, Volume 1, page 50. I know that it is possible for honest men and women to have honest different opinions about the facts of a case, but, if it is possible to reconcile your differences of opinion and decide this case, then you should do so. Accordingly, I remind you that the court originally instructed you that the verdict of the jury must represent the considered judgment of each juror. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate in view of reaching agreement if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you are convinced it is erroneous, but do not surrender your honest convictions as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Please continue your deliberations. We approve the foregoing instruction. It may be given in either criminal or civil cases when the trial judge is con”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edlin 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.