Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pulliam v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Additionally, the [C]ourt has stated that a jury panel should not be quashed unless the defendant can show that the failure to comply with the statute amounts to “actual fraud, prejudice, or such a flagrant violation of duty as to amount to fraud.” Pulliam v. State, 515 So. 2d 945, 948 (Miss. 1987). 2021Although the Supreme Court did not reverse on the issue, the Court stated: “[N]on-compliance with Section 13-5-23, Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 1985), on exemption of jurors does not warrant the quashing of the venire unless there is a showing of actual fraud, prejudice, or such a flagrant violation of duty as to amount to fraud.” Id. | 5 | 6 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See also Harris v. State, 406 So. 2d 823, 824 (Miss. 1981). 2016On appeal, when reviewing a jury-selection issue, we acknowledge that “substantial compliance with [section 13-5-87] will not warrant the quashing of the venire. ... [A] jury panel should not be quashed unless the defendant can show that the failure to comply with the statute amounts to actual fraud, prejudice, or such a flagrant violation of duty as to amount to fraud.” Moore, 816 So.2d at 1026 (¶ 10) (internal quotation marks and citations excluded) (citing Pulliam v. State, 515 So.2d 945 , 948 *1073 (Miss.1987); Griffin v. State, 494 So.2d 376, 379 (Miss.1986); Harris v. State, 406 So.2d 82 | 3 | 3 |
Griffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Furthermore, in Griffin, the Court held: “We are of the opinion that there was compliance with the statute by the circuit clerk, or certainly a substantial compliance; that there was no indication of prejudice or fraud in the method used; and that there is no merit in the assignment of error.” Griffin, 494 So. 2d at 379 (Miss. 1986) (citing Harris v. State, 406 So. 112 2d 823 (Miss. 1981)). ¶230. 2016On appeal, when reviewing a jury-selection issue, we acknowledge that “substantial compliance with [section 13-5-87] will not warrant the quashing of the venire. ... [A] jury panel should not be quashed unless the defendant can show that the failure to comply with the statute amounts to actual fraud, prejudice, or such a flagrant violation of duty as to amount to fraud.” Moore, 816 So.2d at 1026 (¶ 10) (internal quotation marks and citations excluded) (citing Pulliam v. State, 515 So.2d 945 , 948 *1073 (Miss.1987); Griffin v. State, 494 So.2d 376, 379 (Miss.1986); Harris v. State, 406 So.2d 82 | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2016On appeal, when reviewing a jury-selection issue, we acknowledge that “substantial compliance with [section 13-5-87] will not warrant the quashing of the venire. ... [A] jury panel should not be quashed unless the defendant can show that the failure to comply with the statute amounts to actual fraud, prejudice, or such a flagrant violation of duty as to amount to fraud.” Moore, 816 So.2d at 1026 (¶ 10) (internal quotation marks and citations excluded) (citing Pulliam v. State, 515 So.2d 945 , 948 *1073 (Miss.1987); Griffin v. State, 494 So.2d 376, 379 (Miss.1986); Harris v. State, 406 So.2d 82 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garner v. State
green
2 sentences1955This was a most flagrant error, as distinctly held in Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 515 , 25 So. 363 . 1930This was a most flagrant error, as distinctly held in Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 515 , 25 So. 363 . | 3 | 1910–1955 |
United States v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1991Where, as in each of the cases before us, the original conviction has been set aside because of a constitutional error, the imposition of such a punishment, `penalizing those who choose to exercise' constitutional rights, `would be patently unconstitutional.' United States v. Jackson, 390 US 570, 581 , [ 88 S.Ct. 1209, 1216 , 20 L.Ed.2d 138, 147 ]. 1991Where, as in each of the cases before us, the original conviction has been set aside because of a constitutional error, the imposition of such a punishment, `penalizing those who choose to exercise' constitutional rights, `would be patently unconstitutional.' United States v. Jackson, 390 US 570, 581 , [ 88 S.Ct. 1209, 1216 , 20 L.Ed.2d 138, 147 ]. | 2 | 1986–1991 |
North Carolina v. Pearce
red
2 sentences1991In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), the United States Supreme Court ruled that "it would be a flagrant violation" of a defendant's procedural due process rights for a state trial court to impose a heavier sentence upon reconviction in order to punish a defendant for his success in having his original conviction set aside. 1991In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), the United States Supreme Court ruled that "it would be a flagrant violation" of a defendant's procedural due process rights for a state trial court to impose a heavier sentence upon reconviction in order to punish a defendant for his success in having his original conviction set aside. | 2 | 1986–1991 |
Nathaniel Cooper v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2018"A jury panel should not be quashed unless the defendant can show that the failure to comply with the statute amounts to actual fraud, prejudice, or such a flagrant violation of duty as to amount to fraud." Cooper v. State , 200 So.3d 1065 , 1072 (¶ 25) (Miss. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Parker v. State
green
2 sentences1987Parker v. State, 201 Miss. 579, 586-87 , 29 So.2d 910 (1947). 1987Parker v. State, 201 Miss. 579, 586-87 , 29 So.2d 910 (1947). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.