Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 Va. App. 342 - Taitano v. Commonwealth

4 Va. App. 342 - Taitano v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
6
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 517 So. 2d 1346 - Lockett v. State (1987), 529 So. 2d 577 - Johnson v. State (1988)

64 state decisions

3401987199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. Bagley · Swain v. State of Alabama · Griffith v. Kentucky

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

  1. “In the instant case, the Commonwealth attorney articulated clear and specific non-racial reasons for striking each juror. With respect to each of the jurors struck, the Commonwealth attorney stated that he was concerned because they lived near the defendant or near the scene of the crime, or in areas of "high crime" generally. The Commonwealth attorney also considered the age, dress, and demeanor of the prospective jurors in exercising his peremptory challenges. These specific, neutral reasons are sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Under Brady , the Commonwealth is required to deliver that evidence which is favorable to the accused and which, if suppressed, would deprive the accused of a fair trial. The nondisclosed evidence is considered “material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” The Court is required to assess the reasonable probability of a different result in light of the totality of circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, ... that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race, ... [and] that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the ... jury on account of their race.”
    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.