Coleman v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 172 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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Circumstantial evidence is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 Va. App. 744 - Moyer v. Commonwealth · 49 Va. App. 389 - Neel v. Commonwealth

2. “two apparently foreign hairs found in Wanda’s pubic area were, in fact, not those of the victim but were consistent with pubic hair samples taken from Coleman. . . . Gist testified that Coleman was a secretor, one whose “blood type factor” is present “in semen, saliva or other body fluids,” and that 80% to 85% of the population are secretors. Gist determined that Coleman had Type B blood, a rare type possessed by only 10% of the population. Wanda’s blood was type O, a type which 40% to 45% of the population have; her husband’s was Type A. From Gist’s examination of the vaginal specimen taken from the victim’s body he found that spermatozoa had been deposited in her vagina by a secretor with Type B blood. He also determined that a bloodstain on Coleman’s blue jeans was made by Type O human blood.”

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

3. “[The instruction] was based on Code § 18.2-63.1. The trial court gave it because it was “helpful to the jury.” Without the instruction, the jury might have been misled. Instruction IV [a different instruction] only provided as to the capital murder charged in this case that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt inter alia that “the killing was of a person during the commission of rape.” The jury reasonably could have inferred from the evidence that the victim was murdered first and then raped. Without the guidance of [the challenged instruction] the jury might have concluded that Coleman could not be found guilty of capital murder if the rape had been committed after the murder. The trial court, therefore, did not err in granting [the instruction].”

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