Pitt v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited
26 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Fahy v. Connecticut · Johnson v. Commonwealth · Lilly v. Commonwealth
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen a federal constitutional error is involved, a reversal is required unless the reviewing court determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967). The reviewing court must determine "`whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'" Id. at 23 [, 87 S.Ct. 824 ] (quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [ 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ] (1963)). In making that determination, the court must consider, among other factors, "the importance of the tainted evidence in the prosecution's case, whether that evidence was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the tainted evidence on material points, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case." Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 , 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 [ 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 ] (1986)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To convict [a defendant] of attempted robbery, the Commonwealth is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] intended to steal personal property from [the victim], against his will, by force, violence, or intimidation. Additionally, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] committed a direct, but ineffectual, act to accomplish the crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Commonwealth is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] intended to steal property from [the victim], against his will, by force, violence, or intimidation.” Pitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 692, 695 , 539 S.E.2d 77, 78-79 (2000).”
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.