Poyner v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Frye v. Commonwealth (1986), Gray v. Commonwealth (1987)
6 federal appellate · 113 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Oregon v. Elstad
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The jury had no right to know what might happen to defendant, in terms of parole eligibility, after sentencing. During the penalty phase it was the jury's duty to assess the penalty, irrespective of considerations of parole.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia, Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia · O'Dell III v. Jd Netherland J S III O'Dell III“Rejecting Edmonds’ claim, the trial judge was justified in relying on the sworn testimony and the physical evidence adduced at trial. All the offenses — the initial assault, the fatal stabbing, and the larceny — were committed at some point within the ten-minute interval between the time Margaret Clark saw Edmonds on his way to the store and the time Leonard McDaniel arrived. Death from the neck wound was not instantaneous. [The victim] was calling for help as Edmonds was crouching behind the cash register, and it is reasonable to believe that the gag was applied to stifle further outcry and to facilitate the theft. In light of the inferences raised by this sequence of events and the time factor involved, we are of opinion that the evidence supports the conclusion that the killing and the theft were interdependent objects of a common criminal design, and we will affirm the conviction of capital murder in the commission of robbery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent. This does not mean, as some have suggested, that each police station must have a “station house lawyer” present at all times to advise prisoners. It does mean, however, that if police propose to interrogate a person they must make known to him that he is entitled to a lawyer and that if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him prior to any interrogation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Strain
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.