LeVasseur v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 284 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 315 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Spencer v. Commonwealth (1990), Frye v. Commonwealth (1986)
13 federal appellate · 284 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Beck v. Alabama · Jurek v. Texas · Adams v. Texas · Hopper v. Evans
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 315 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] party has no right, statutory or otherwise, to propound any question he wishes, or to extend voir dire questioning ad infinitum. " 225 Va. at 581 , 304 S.E.2d at 653 . Nothing in the record in the present case, however, suggests that defense counsel sought to "propound any question he wishe[d], or to extend voir dire questioning ad infinitum. " Code § 8.01-358 mandates that "counsel for either party shall have the right to examine under oath any person who is called as a juror ... and shall have the right to ask such person ... directly any relevant question to ascertain whether he... is sensible of any bias or prejudice.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Ejrror arising from an improper question or improper conduct of counsel may usually be cured by prompt and decisive action of the trial court without granting a motion for a mistrial.” Black v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 277, 286 , 288 S.E.2d 449, 454 (1982). The trial court must make an initial factual determination, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether the defendant’s rights had been so indelibly prejudiced as to require a new trial. Unless we can say as a matter of law that this determination was wrong, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given. See Lewis v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 80, 84 , 175 S.E.2d 236, 239 (1970).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he trial court must weigh the meaning of the answers given in light of the phrasing of the questions posed, the inflections, tone, and tenor of the dialogue, and the general demeanor of the prospective juror. We are aware that, while the words employed may, when transcribed and read in retrospect, appear ambivalent, the judge who heard them ut tered was uniquely positioned to assess their ultimate import.”
3 later decisions 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.