32 Va. App. 307 - Shackleford v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[E]xpert testimony, usually that of a police officer,” is one factor or circumstance which the fact finder may consider in determining whether drugs were possessed with intent to distribute. Because the facts and circumstances in each drug-related case vary, no uniform standard exists to differentiate an amount that is always for personal use or for distribution. While many states have chosen to differentiate between the severity or degree of the offense based upon the amount in one’s possession, Virginia recognizes that a drug dealer may not always possess a large amount of illegal contraband. Thus, proof of whether one possesses drugs for personal use or distribution depends on the facts of each case. The creation of an evidentiary presumption based on possession of a specific amount is left to the legislature.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 40 Va. App. 104 - Askew v. Commonwealth · 56 Va. App. 667 - Holloway v. Commonwealth

2. “to that form minimized the importance of the right to counsel and caused him to believe that he had the right to have either counsel or his parents present during interrogation, but not both. In pertinent part, the modified, preprinted form that Shackleford signed contained the following information: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK TO A LAWYER OR PARENTS FOR ADVICE BEFORE WE ASK YOU ANY QUESTIONS AND TO HAVE A LAYER OR PARENTS WITH YOU DURING QUESTIONING. Miers testified that he told Shackleford that, since Shackleford was a juvenile, he had the right to have his parents present”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shackleford v. Commonwealth

3. “it is unlawful for any person to transport into the Commonwealth ... with intent to sell or distribute one ounce or more of cocaine, coca leaves or any salt, compound, derivative or preparation thereof... .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shackleford v. Commonwealth