13 Va. App. 519 - Adkins v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2017
1 federal appellate · 22 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 Godfrey v. Commonwealth · Stephens v. Commonwealth · 2 Va. App. 606 - Cantwell 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Representations of counsel or recollections of the trial judge not supported by the record are insufficient to excuse a delay. [Godfrey, 227 Va. at 464 .] The testimony of a deputy sheriff is equally insufficient The testimony of witnesses cannot stand in lieu of findings and rulings of the trial judge entered of record. To do so would diminish the sanctity of the court’s records. The record of proceedings in a court of record cannot be left to the vagaries of a swearing contest between witnesses. Such is an insufficient basis to establish why delay occurred which prevented a criminal defendant from receiving a speedy trial. See Godfrey, 227 Va. at 464 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“that there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a felony.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining responsibility for the delay of a criminal trial, we must confine our review to the record before us. Because of the fragility of memories “Representations of counsel, or even of the trial judge, if not supported by the record, are insufficient.” A trial court’s actions are reflected in the record only through its orders and decrees. Consequently, a trial date scheduled by the court in a criminal case must be documented before we may consider it in evaluating trial delay, and no trial date was scheduled by the court in this case. sj« * * * * * Only the trial court, not the Commonwealth’s Attorney, has authority to schedule criminal cases for trial. Code § 19.2-241 provides that “[t]he judge of each circuit court shall fix a day of his court when the trial of criminal cases will commence, and may make such general or special order in reference thereto.... ” This provision contemplates an orderly procedure for setting criminal cases and expressly places the control of that process under the supervision of the trial court, not a party litigant. The policy expressed in this provision recognizes the role of the trial judge in insuring the prompt disposition of criminal cases.”
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.