Baucom v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Baucom asserts that he is entitled to a new penalty phase hearing because the jury was not given a “no adverse inference” instruction at the penalty phase of the trial. He concedes that this issue is not preserved [and] seeks review pursuant to RCr 10.26. There was no error in the trial judge’s failure, sua sponte, to include a “no adverse inference” instruction in the penalty phase instructions. That instruction is required only when requested and no request was made in this case. RCr. 9.54(3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wood v. Commonwealth

2. “A trial court acts erroneously where it affirmatively misrepresents a defendant's choice of counsel as being between 'only two alternatives: either represent himself or accept appointed counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henderson v. Commonwealth