Triplett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Basic defense in this case required complete investigation to ascertain every material fact about this case, favorable and unfavorable. It required familiarity with the scene, and the setting. It required through his own resources and process of the court learning the names of, and interviewing every possible eyewitness, and getting statements from each. It required prior to trial learning all information held by the state available to the defense through pre-trial discovery motions.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Payton v. State · Wilcher v. State

2. “[f]ailure of counsel to issue subpoenas even for friendly, favorable witnesses is perilous, because if for some reason the witness fails to appear, a pre-requisite for continuance is that he or she is either under process or a reasonable effort has been made to serve him or her with a subpoena. Eslick v. State, 238 Miss. 666 , 119 So.2d 355 (1960); Bolin v. State, 209 Miss. 866 , 48 So.2d 581 (1950)[overruled in part on other grounds]; Bone v. State, 207 Miss. 20 , 41 So.2d 347 (1949). In order to be entitled to a continuance because of an absent witness, counsel must demonstrate to the court that "he has used due diligence" to secure his presence. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-29 (1972). Embraced therein is the requirement that counsel has made a timely effort to place the absent witness under a subpoena. Pinson v. State, 518 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Miss.1988); Watson v. State, 465 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss.1985); Ford v. State, 227 So.2d 454 (Miss.1969); Thigpen v. State, 206 Miss. 87 , 39 So.2d 768 (1949). Having a constitutional right at no cost to himself "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor," Miss. Const. Art. 3, § 26, there is simply no excuse for defense counsel failing to request a subpoena for his witnesses. Counsel was derelict in failing to seek pre-trial discovery and in requesting witness subpoenas.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 265 So. 3d 1242 - Darryl Metcalf v. State of Mississippi · 269 So. 3d 1197 - Craytonia Latroy Badger v. State of Mississippi

3. “counsel's failure to challenge a single prospective juror ... strongly suggest[ed] no preparation in the selection of the jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walker v. State · 913 So. 2d 913 - Le v. State