34 Va. App. 323 - Jerman v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2004
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Atkins v. Commonwealth · 14 Va. App. 988 - Campbell v. Commonwealth · Fishback v. Commonwealth · Coward v. Commonwealth · David Edward Hartigan, III v. Commonwealth of VA
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, the question propounded by the jury and the response given by the court without objection from [Jerman] are factually similar to those in Fishback . The sole difference is that [Jerman], in the instant case, did not request an instruc tion regarding the abolition of parole until post-trial motions. However, [Jerman’s] failure to request an instruction does not end our analysis. Fishback clearly states that any case “not yet final,” i.e., still in the breast of a proper trial court or appellate process, is subject to the new instruction requirements. . . . [The jury’s] question clearly indicated to the trial court that the jury assumed that parole would be available to [Jerman]. This is the precise instance the [Virginia] Supreme Court addressed by stating that the jury required instruction from the court as to the “new rule” of law in pending cases. The trial court’s response in this case failed to fulfill the requirement of Fishback because it left the jury with the belief that parole would be available. Even though [Jerman] failed to object or raise the issue during trial, the trial court had an affirmative duty to properly instruct the jury about the matter because they evidenced a need for instruction by posing the question to the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“You have found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and abduction. You should impose such punishment as you feel is just under the evidence and within the instructions of the Court. You are not to concern yourselves with what might happen afterwards.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.