519 So. 2d 418 - West v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]f those thirty instances, twenty [were] of the type which may be characterized as coaching the district attorney.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Foster v. State · 875 So. 2d 140 - Dycus v. State

2. “In Thompson v. State, 468 So.2d 852, 854 (Miss.1985), the Court said: It is a matter of common knowledge that jurors ... are very susceptible to the influence of the judge ... jurors watch his conduct, and give attention to his language, that they may, if possible, ascertain his leaning to one side or the other, which, if known, often largely influences their verdict. He cannot be too careful and guarded in language and conduct in the presence of the jury, to avoid prejudice to either party. See also Norman v. State, 385 So.2d 1298 (Miss.1980); Stallworth v. State, 310 So.2d 900 (Miss.1975); Shore v. State, 287 So.2d 766 (Miss.1974); Green v. State, 97 Miss. 834 , 53 So. 415 (1910). We have recognized the danger that a trial judge generates by indicating or showing his attention to certain matters in the trial which may communicate to the jury the impression that such evidence or testimony is important or unimportant, and the very position of a judge during trial makes each comment unusually susceptible of influencing a juror or the jury. Shelton v. Puckett, 483 So.2d 354 (Miss.1986); Hannah v. State, 336 So.2d 1317 (Miss.1976); Thompson v. State, supra ; Stubbs v. State, 441 So.2d 1386 (Miss.1983); Fulgham v. State, 386 So.2d 1099 (Miss.1980); Myers v. State, 99 Miss. 263 , 54 So. 849 (1911).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Doss v. State · 733 So. 2d 214 - Watts v. State

3. “The law is now well established that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character, record, or any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); Jordan v. State, 518 So.2d 1186 (Miss. 1987).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State · 973 So. 2d 184 - Spicer v. State