18 Va. App. 182 - Swanson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2014
12 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 Herman v. Department of Treasury · Erickson v. Illinois · Watkins v. Virginia · Watkins v. Commonwealth · Satcher 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, [i]t is not uncommon to discover during voir dire that prospective jurors have preconceived notions, opinions, or misconceptions about the criminal justice system, criminal trials and procedure, or about the particular ease. The opinion entertained by a juror, which disqualifies him, is an opinion of that fixed character which repels the presumption of innocence in a criminal case, and in whose mind the accused stands condemned already. Thus, the test of impartiality is whether the venireperson can lay aside the preconceived views and render a verdict based solely on the law and evidence presented at trial. Given that the trial court is able to see and hear each member of the venire respond to questions posed during voir dire, it is in a superior position to determine whether a prospective juror’s responses during voir dire indicate that the juror would be prevented from or impaired in performing the duties of a juror as required by the court’s instructions and the juror’s oath. Juror impartiality is a question of fact, and a trial court’s decision to seat a juror is entitled to great deference on appeal. Accordingly, the decision to retain or exclude a prospective juror -will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been manifest error amounting to an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he right to a trial by an impartial jury is guaranteed under both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. This guarantee is reinforced by legislative enactment and by the rules of court. It is the trial judge’s duty to secure an impartial jury for the parties. Resolution of the question of a juror’s impartiality depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. At a minimum, ... the law requires that the juror “stand indifferent in the cause.” Any reasonable doubt regarding the prospective juror’s ability to give the accused a fair and impartial trial must be resolved in favor of the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Through voir dire and other competent evidence, the trial court must examine the venirepersons for signs of a mind set that “ Vould prevent or substantially impair the performance of [the] duties [of] a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ””
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.