Booker v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “These separate holdings in Fishback illustrate an important distinction between instructions that properly further the goal of “truth in sentencing” by removing the possibility that a jury will act upon misconceptions, and those instructions that have the improper effect of inviting the jury to speculate concerning the likelihood of future actions that may ultimately affect the length of a defendant’s incarceration. See Bell v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 172, 207-08 , 563 S.E.2d 695, 718 (2002). A jury instruction regarding a defendant’s ineligibility for parole is proper, because it serves to eliminate a common misconception that a defendant may only serve a small portion of a jury’s sentence. See Fishback, 260 Va. at 113 , 532 S.E.2d at 633 . In contrast, a jury instruction that a defendant may be eligible for earned sentencing credits once incarcerated is improper, because the jury cannot employ this information in its sentencing determination without resorting to speculation about the defendant’s future behavior while incarcerated. See Bell, 264 Va. at 206-07 , 563 S.E.2d at 718 ; Fishback, 260 Va. at 116 , 532 S.E.2d at 634 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 63 Va. App. 210 - Michael Ryan Bruton v. Commonwealth of Virginia

2. “informed [the circuit court] with reasonable certainty of [the litigant's] concern”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arnold v. Wallace