986 So. 2d 917 - Dora v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 41 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 de fense. 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. The question is whether the prosecutor’s statement can be construed as commenting upon the failure of the defendant to take the stand.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kleckner v. State · Fullilove v. State

2. “Given that the constitutional right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, see Klopfer [v. State of North Carolina ], 386 U.S .... 213, 87 S.Ct. 988 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1 [ (1967) ], this Court must determine whether plain-error review is applicable, i.e., whether an “error of the trial court has impacted upon a fundamental right,” Sanders [v. State], 678 So.2d [663,] 670 [ (Miss.1996) ], and is “so fundamental that it generates a miscarriage of justice.” Morgan [v. State ], 793 So.2d [615,] 617 [ (¶ 9) (Miss.2001) (citations omitted) ]. Absent the plain-error criteria being satisfied unequivocally, appellate courts are loath to address issues not presented to the trial court.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Kleckner v. State · 997 So. 2d 248 - Muise v. State

3. “Attorneys are allowed a wide latitude in arguing their cases to the jury. However, prosecutors are not permitted to use tactics which are inflammatory, highly prejudicial, or reasonably calculated to unduly influence the jury. Hiter v. State, 660 So.2d 961, 966 (Miss.1995). The standard of review that appellate courts must apply to lawyer misconduct during opening statements or closing arguments is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice against the accused so as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951, 961 (Miss.1992).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tameka Smith v. State of Mississippi · 20 So. 3d 623 - Tate v. State