1 Va. App. 447 - Scott v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably 3 Va. App. 564 - Mullis v. Commonwealth (1987), 2 Va. App. 134 - Wilson v. Commonwealth (1986)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Smith v. Phillips · Dennis v. United States · United States v. Allsup · Watkins v. Commonwealth · Justus v. Commonwealth
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A]n accused is entitled to an impartial jury as a matter of constitutional guarantee, reenforced by legislative mandate and by the Rules of . . . court.” It is the court’s duty to procure an impartial jury. The court’s fulfillment of this duty, however, involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The court’s duty, in the exercise of its discretion, is to empanel jurors who are free from bias or prejudice against the parties and who “stand indifferent in the cause.” Code § 8.01-358, which is made applicable to criminal proceedings by Code § 19.2-260, provides for voir dire of a perspective [sic] juror “to ascertain whether he is related to either party, or has any interest in the cause, or has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We believe a per se rule is unwarranted in this case. We recognize that a prospective juror employed by the victim of a crime may face overt or subtle influences on his capacity to hear the evidence and render judgment fairly and impartially. . . . We conclude, however, that Henderson’s employment by Ukrops, without more, should not lead us to impute a bias to him which is not disclosed by the record.”
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.