Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Va. 445 - Jenkins v. Commonwealth

Jenkins v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
2
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 126 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Riner v. Com. (2004), Goins v. Commonwealth (1996)

6 federal appellate · 126 state decisions

920199220002010decided

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 · Chapman v. State of California · Rhode Island v. Innis · United States v. Young · 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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Virginia has been more careful than most states to protect the inviolability and secrecy of jurors’ deliberations. We have adhered strictly to the general rule that the testimony of jurors should not be received to impeach their verdict, especially on the ground of their own misconduct.” “Generally, we have limited findings of prejudicial juror misconduct to activities of jurors that occur outside the jury room.” ... In the present case, however, any alleged misconduct, if it occurred, was clearly within the confines of the jury room. Thus, a post-trial investigation into the allegations was unwarranted.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights is valid when the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. While the question whether a statement is voluntary is ultimately a legal rather than a factual one, subsidiary factual determinations are entitled to a presumption of correctness. The test for voluntariness is whether the statement is the “product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker,” or whether the maker’s will “has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602 (1961). When determining whether a defendant’s will has been overborne, the totality of the circumstances must be examined, including the defendant’s experience and background as well as the conduct of the police.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “examined records in all capital murder cases previously reviewed by this Court when, as here, the death penalty was imposed based upon Code [section] 18.2-31(3), the capital murder of an inmate while the defendant was confined in a state or local correctional facility. Additionally, we have examined the records in all capital murder cases previously reviewed by this Court when the sentence of death was based upon aggravated battery, vileness, and future dangerousness and the victim died as a result of multiple stabbings.”
    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.