Russell v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Taylor (1996), State v. Malave (1999)
34 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 Neeley v. Johnson · Dillard v. Commonwealth · Bland v. City of Richmond · Williamson v. Commonwealth · Robinson 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]se of the [missing witness] instruction against the defense would run head on into the presumption of innocence to which every accused is entitled and upon which juries are universally instructed. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. The defense need not prove anything; it may rely upon the presumption of innocence. To tell a jury that the failure of the defense to call a material witness raises an adverse presumption against the accused is to weaken, if not neutralize, the presumption of innocence which, if given its full strength, might be sufficient to tip the scales in favor of acquittal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court instructs the jury that under the testimony given by Lloyd Rosser in this case, he was an accomplice in the commission of the offense charged in the indictment, and while the jury may find its verdict upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, such evidence is to be received with great caution, and the Court, in this case, warns the jury of the danger of basing a verdict on the unsupported testimony of an accomplice. “The Court further instructs the jury that the testimony of an accomplice must be received with great care and caution, and if you believe the testimony of an alleged accomplice was false, and that he was induced to testify falsely, either by fear of punishment or hope of reward, you must disregard that testimony in its entirety.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I] t is one thing for this court to employ a judicial guideline in determining the sufficiency of evidence, or to say that á matter may be the legitimate subject of comment by counsel for one party or another, or to indicate that a circumstance may be considered by the trier of fact; it, is quite another thing, however, for a trial court to instruct a jury that an adverse presumption arises from the failure of one or the other of the parties to a criminal proceeding to call a particular witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.