Green v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 43 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The decision whether to grant a motion for mistrial lies within a trial court’s exercise of discretion. When a motion for mistrial is made, based upon an allegedly prejudicial event, the trial court must make an initial factual determination, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether the defendant’s rights are so indelibly prejudiced as to necessitate a new trial. Unless we can say that the trial court’s determination was wrong as a matter of law, we will not disturb its judgment on appeal.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lewis v. Com. · Blanton v. Com.

2. “a defendant does not have an absolute right to the assistance of an investigator, even when charged with capital murder. Bailey v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 723, 737 , 529 S.E.2d 570, 578 (2000). Instead, as with any request for the appointment of an expert, a defendant "must show a particularized need" by establishing "that the services of an expert would materially assist him in the preparation of his defense and that the denial of such services would result in a fundamentally unfair trial." Husske v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 203, 212-13 , 476 S.E.2d 920, 925-26 (1996). The determination whether a defendant has made an adequate showing of particularized need for expert assistance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.; see also Lenz v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 451, 462 , 544 S.E.2d 299, 305 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1003 [ 122 S.Ct. 481 , 151 L.Ed.2d 395 ] (2001); Bailey, 259 Va. at 737 , 529 S.E.2d at 578 . . . . . A particularized need is more than a "mere hope" that favorable evidence can be obtained through the services of an expert. Husske, 252 Va. at 212 , 476 S.E.2d at 925-26 .”

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

3. “an intent to kill that needs to exist only for a moment.”

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