942 So. 2d 243 - Pickle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Olano · Myers v. State · 731 So. 2d 1120 - Young v. State · 794 So. 2d 181 - Williams v. State · 731 So. 2d 601 - Ivy 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have reviewed Pickle’s PCR [motion] and conclude that it fails to substantially show any errors seriously af fecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings that would implicate plain error review. For illustrative purposes, we briefly discuss Pickle’s main arguments. Concerning the jury instructions, Pickle contends that the instructions allowed his unconstitutional conviction of capital murder with the underlying felony of attempted rape when he had been indicted for capital murder with the underlying felony of rape. Pickle argues that by charging him with the completed crime of rape, his indictment did not properly charge him with attempted rape. This argument is clearly without merit; Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-5 (Eev. 2000) provides that a jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged in the indictment or of any attempt to commit the same offense. Further, contrary to Pickle’s arguments, he was not’ found guilty of the predicate felony of rape upon improper jury instructions because the jury was correctly instructed on the elements of rape as the crime was statutorily defined at the time of Pickle’s offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The term “newly discovered evidence” refers to evidence, that is, an exhibit, testimony, or some other information that could have been offered as evidence in the defendant’s trial but was not offered because it was not reasonably discoverable at the time of the trial. The concept of newly discovered evidence does not embrace a prisoner’s untimely realization that legal errors occurred at his trial. Accordingly, we have held that a prisoner’s failure to understand the law until conducting research into his case does not constitute newly discovered evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.