Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 398 Mass. 615 - Commonwealth v. Mayfield

Commonwealth v. Mayfield’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
4
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 106 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Martino (1992), Commonwealth v. Vinnie (1998)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 106 state decisions

4801986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Franks v. Delaware · Costello v. United States · Oregon v. Mathiason

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

  1. ““[I]t is not enough for dismissal of an indictment that false or deceptive evidence was presented to the grand jury. Two further elements normally must be shown. First, our cases have required a showing that false or deceptive evidence was given to the grand jury knowingly and for the purpose of obtaining an indictment. . . . Second, the defendant must show that the presentation of the false or deceptive evidence probably influenced the grand jury’s determination to hand up an indictment. This requires a showing not only that the evidence was material to the question of probable cause but that, on the entire grand jury record, the false or deceptive testimony probably made a difference.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““To sustain a claim that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding has been impaired, not only must the evidence have been given with knowledge that it was false or deceptive, but the false or deceptive evidence must probably have been significant in the view of the grand jury and must have been presented with the intention of obtaining an indictment.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “likely affected the grand jury's decision to indict.”
    2 later decisions 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.