Gray v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 216 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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'plainly wrong or without evidence to support [them].' " DeMille , 283 Va. at 323, 720 S.E.2d 69 (quoting Squire , 278 Va. at 751 , 685 S.E.2d 631 ). The test for determining voluntariness is whether the statement was the "product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker,”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tirado v. Commonwealth · Roach v. Commonwealth

2. “[T]he defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits "those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate." Finally, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. * * * * * * Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.... [T]he prosecutor's explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause. But the prosecutor may not rebut the defendant's prima facie case of discrimination by stating merely that he challenged jurors of the defendant's race on the assumption—or his intuitive judgment—that they would be partial to the defendant because of their shared race.... Nor may the prosecutor rebut the defendant's case merely by denying that he had a discriminatory motive or "affirming his good faith in making individual selections." ... The prosecutor therefore must articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried. The trial court then will have th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Winfield v. Commonwealth · Winfield v. Com.

3. ““In assessing the penalty of any person convicted of an offense for which the death penalty may be imposed, a sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the court or jury shall (1) after consideration of the past criminal record of convictions of the defendant, find that there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society or that his conduct in committing the offense for which he stands charged was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victim; and (2) recommend that the penalty of death be imposed.””

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