Phillips v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the language of Code § 19.2-294 does not state that it provides a defense of former jeopardy, “it amounts to such a defense in purpose and desired effect.” Epps v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 150, 155 , 216 S.E.2d 64, 68 (1975); Sigmon v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 258, 263 , 105 S.E.2d 171, 175-76 (1958). Like the Fifth Amendment bar of former jeopardy, Code § 19.2-294 prevents the Commonwealth from “subjecting an accused to the hazards of vexatious, multiple prosecutions.” Hall v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 892, 899 , 421 S.E.2d 455, 460 (1992) (en banc).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 Va. App. 61 - Schwartz v. Commonwealth · 40 Va. App. 377 - Londono v. Commonwealth

2. “The procurement of arrest warrants on different dates does not automatically trigger the successive prosecution bar of Code § 19.2-294. Since the bar is intended to protect an accused from the “hazards of vexatious, multiple prosecutions,” the bar does not preclude the prosecution of charges in a single, evidentiary hearing, even though the arrest warrants were obtained on different dates. In such a situation, the accused is not subjected to a greater burden than when the charges are brought simultaneously and heard together. The accused conducts his defense based on the same trial sequence and faces the same potential for anxiety, expense, and punishment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 57 Va. App. 446 - Davis v. Commonwealth

3. “One week later, two more arrest warrants were issued against Phillips charging him with misdemeanor offenses of distributing less than a half-ounce of marijuana ..., in violation of Code § 18.2-248.1, based on the same acts as the felony charges. On October 29, 1996, Phillips appeared in the General District Court of Russell County on all four charges. At that hearing, Phillips was tried and convicted on the two misdemeanor charges and waived a preliminary hearing on the two felony charges. The grand jury later indicted Phillips on the two felony charges.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 57 Va. App. 446 - Davis v. Commonwealth