12 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
West v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Id. at 452 ("withdrawal from representation of both counsel who were to be witnesses on contested issues was required"); see also West v. State, 519 So.2d 418, 423 (Miss. 1988) ("The court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, for taking active part in the trial of a case, but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule"). ¶ 25. 2004Id. at 452 (“withdrawal from representation of both counsel who were to be witnesses on contested issues was required”); see also West v. State, 519 So. 2d 418, 423 (Miss. 1988) (“The court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, for taking active part in the trial of a case, but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule”). ¶25. | 2 | 2 |
Pearson v. Parsonsgreen2 sentences2007Id. at 452 ("withdrawal from representation of both counsel who were to be witnesses on contested issues was required"); see also West v. State, 519 So.2d 418, 423 (Miss. 1988) ("The court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, for taking active part in the trial of a case, but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule"). ¶ 25. 2004Id. at 452 (“withdrawal from representation of both counsel who were to be witnesses on contested issues was required”); see also West v. State, 519 So. 2d 418, 423 (Miss. 1988) (“The court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, for taking active part in the trial of a case, but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule”). ¶25. | 2 | 2 |
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences1994More importantly, the West court noted that "[i]n Gradsky v. State, 243 Miss. 379 , 137 So.2d 820 (1962) this Court held that in criminal prosecutions the accused may call his attorney as a witness where the attorney has evidence vital to the defense" and that "[t]he court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, ..., but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule." Id. at 423 (quoting Gradsky and citing Ri 1988See also Richardson v. State, 436 So.2d 790 (Miss. 1983); Pittman v. Currie, 414 So.2d 423 (Miss. 1982). | 1 | 2 |
Gulley v. Stategreen2 sentences2023However, this Court stated that “an ethical violation by the prosecutor does nothing to negate the guilt of an indicted defendant,” and any sanctions for such a violation “does not per se have any effect on the fairness of the trial.” Id. 2023After reviewing the record, this Court determined that “[d]espite the improper pretrial statements made by the district attorney, there is no evidence . . . suggesting that [the defendant] was denied his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury,” explaining that “[v]oir dire of the 7 individual jury members showed that [the defendant] did not suffer any prejudice by such comments.” Id. at 1147-48 (¶23). | 1 | 1 |
Mississippi Com'n on Judicial Performance v. Sandersgreen1 sentence2022Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Sanders, 708 So. 2d 866, 878 (¶66) (Miss. 1998) (finding a circuit court judge committed an ethical violation by acting “without authority or jurisdiction . . . [when] [she] suspended the sentence of a former client and later released and placed a second inmate on probation after his conviction and sentence had been affirmed by a superior court.”); Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Magyar v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Code Ann. § 97-9-63 (Rev. 2020) (“Every person who shall unlawfully or corruptly procure any witness, by any means whatever, to commit wilful and corrupt perjury in any case, matter, or proceedings in or concerning which such witness shall be legally sworn and examined, shall be guilty of subornation of perjury . . . .”). 24 Kirksey, 728 So. 2d at 568 (¶12); Harveston, 597 So. 2d at 642 ; Magyar, 18 So. 3d at 859 (¶28). | 1 | 1 |
Kirksey v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Code Ann. § 97-9-63 (Rev. 2020) (“Every person who shall unlawfully or corruptly procure any witness, by any means whatever, to commit wilful and corrupt perjury in any case, matter, or proceedings in or concerning which such witness shall be legally sworn and examined, shall be guilty of subornation of perjury . . . .”). 24 Kirksey, 728 So. 2d at 568 (¶12); Harveston, 597 So. 2d at 642 ; Magyar, 18 So. 3d at 859 (¶28). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gradsky v. State
green
2 sentences1994More importantly, the West court noted that "[i]n Gradsky v. State, 243 Miss. 379 , 137 So.2d 820 (1962) this Court held that in criminal prosecutions the accused may call his attorney as a witness where the attorney has evidence vital to the defense" and that "[t]he court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, ..., but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule." Id. at 423 (quoting Gradsky and citing Ri 1994More importantly, the West court noted that "[i]n Gradsky v. State, 243 Miss. 379 , 137 So.2d 820 (1962) this Court held that in criminal prosecutions the accused may call his attorney as a witness where the attorney has evidence vital to the defense" and that "[t]he court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, ..., but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule." Id. at 423 (quoting Gradsky and citing Ri | 3 | 1983–1994 |
Brooks v. State
green
2 sentences1988We have pointed out in the case of Brooks v. State, 209 Miss. 150 , 46 So.2d 94 , that "Constitutional rights in serious criminal cases rise above mere rules of procedure." The court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, for taking active part in the trial of a case, but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule. 243 Miss. at 384 , 137 So.2d at 821 . 1988We have pointed out in the case of Brooks v. State, 209 Miss. 150 , 46 So.2d 94 , that "Constitutional rights in serious criminal cases rise above mere rules of procedure." The court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, for taking active part in the trial of a case, but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule. 243 Miss. at 384 , 137 So.2d at 821 . | 3 | 1962–1988 |
Miller v. Urban
green
2 sentences1983Miller v. Urban, [ 123 Conn. 331 ] 195 A. 193 , 118 A.L.R. 951 -954; 58 Am.Jur. 110, Witnesses, Sec. 152. (emphasis and footnote ours). 243 Miss. at 384 , 137 So.2d 820 . 1983Miller v. Urban, [ 123 Conn. 331 ] 195 A. 193 , 118 A.L.R. 951 -954; 58 Am.Jur. 110, Witnesses, Sec. 152. (emphasis and footnote ours). 243 Miss. at 384 , 137 So.2d 820 . | 2 | 1962–1983 |
Harveston v. State
green
1 sentence2022Code Ann. § 97-9-63 (Rev. 2020) (“Every person who shall unlawfully or corruptly procure any witness, by any means whatever, to commit wilful and corrupt perjury in any case, matter, or proceedings in or concerning which such witness shall be legally sworn and examined, shall be guilty of subornation of perjury . . . .”). 24 Kirksey, 728 So. 2d at 568 (¶12); Harveston, 597 So. 2d at 642 ; Magyar, 18 So. 3d at 859 (¶28). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Turner v. Turner
green
1 sentence2018It is true that the purpose of the Rules of Professional Conduct is generally to provide for "lawyer's self-assessment" and "structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies." See Turner v. Turner , 73 So.3d 576 , 580 (¶ 17) (Miss. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Emil v. the Mississippi Bar
green
1 sentence2005"The need to deter similar misconduct among the bar at large is very strong." Id. at 327 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Matter of Wetzel
green
2 sentences1993Alabama Bar Association Op. 84-22; Alaska Bar Association, Op. 83-2; Matter of Wetzel, 143 Ariz. 35 , 691 P.2d 1063 (1984); People v. Wallin, 621 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1981); Dallas Bar Association Op. 1981-5; Hawaii Supreme Court Op. 30; New York Bar Association, Op. 328 An Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 283 S.C. 369 , 322 S.E.2d 667 (1984). 1993Alabama Bar Association Op. 84-22; Alaska Bar Association, Op. 83-2; Matter of Wetzel, 143 Ariz. 35 , 691 P.2d 1063 (1984); People v. Wallin, 621 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1981); Dallas Bar Association Op. 1981-5; Hawaii Supreme Court Op. 30; New York Bar Association, Op. 328 An Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 283 S.C. 369 , 322 S.E.2d 667 (1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Wallin
green
1 sentence1993Alabama Bar Association Op. 84-22; Alaska Bar Association, Op. 83-2; Matter of Wetzel, 143 Ariz. 35 , 691 P.2d 1063 (1984); People v. Wallin, 621 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1981); Dallas Bar Association Op. 1981-5; Hawaii Supreme Court Op. 30; New York Bar Association, Op. 328 An Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 283 S.C. 369 , 322 S.E.2d 667 (1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Suggs v. Town of Caledonia
green
1 sentence1993We encountered a similar situation in Suggs v. Town of Caledonia, 470 So.2d 1055 (Miss. 1985). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In Re an Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar
green
2 sentences1993Alabama Bar Association Op. 84-22; Alaska Bar Association, Op. 83-2; Matter of Wetzel, 143 Ariz. 35 , 691 P.2d 1063 (1984); People v. Wallin, 621 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1981); Dallas Bar Association Op. 1981-5; Hawaii Supreme Court Op. 30; New York Bar Association, Op. 328 An Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 283 S.C. 369 , 322 S.E.2d 667 (1984). 1993Alabama Bar Association Op. 84-22; Alaska Bar Association, Op. 83-2; Matter of Wetzel, 143 Ariz. 35 , 691 P.2d 1063 (1984); People v. Wallin, 621 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1981); Dallas Bar Association Op. 1981-5; Hawaii Supreme Court Op. 30; New York Bar Association, Op. 328 An Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 283 S.C. 369 , 322 S.E.2d 667 (1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Pittman v. Currie
green
1 sentence1988See also Richardson v. State, 436 So.2d 790 (Miss. 1983); Pittman v. Currie, 414 So.2d 423 (Miss. 1982). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.