958 So. 2d 158 - Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" [t]here is a difference ... between a comment on the defendant's failure to testify and a comment on the defendant's failure to put on a successful defense. " [ Jimpson v. State, 532 So.2d 985, 991 (Miss.1988)] (emphasis in original). The state is entitled to comment on the lack of any defense, and such comment will not be construed as a reference to the defendant's failure to testify by innuendo and insinuation. Shook v. State, 552 So.2d 841, 851 (Miss.1989) (emphasis added). The question is whether the prosecutor's statement can be construed as commenting upon the failure of the defendant to take the stand. Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 754 (Miss.1991).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fullilove v. State · Anderson v. State

2. “[N]ot every comment regarding the lack of any defense is automatically deemed to point toward the defense’s failure to testify. Attorneys are to be given wide latitude in making their closing arguments.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 986 So. 2d 917 - Dora v. State · 44 So. 3d 977 - Teston v. State

3. “[t]here is a difference ... between a comment on the defendant's failure to testify and a comment on the defendant's failure to put on a successful defense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 So. 3d 612 - Archer v. State · 986 So. 2d 917 - Dora v. State