Commonwealth v. Angiulo’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 district · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. James (1997), Commonwealth v. Donahue (2000)
4 district · 69 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3432
Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Illinois v. Allen · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Estelle v. Williams · Dobbert v. Florida
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a judge conducts an inquiry about a consequential matter, such as alleged serious misconduct of jurors, there is a requirement, deriving from the constitutional right of confrontation, that the defendant and his counsel be present.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he empanelment of an anonymous jury triggers due process scrutiny because this practice is likely to taint the jurors' opinion of the defendant, thereby burdening the presumption of innocence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Tucker · Perez v. People“While the trial judge may perform minor administrative formalities outside the presence of the defendant, ... the judge may not bar the defendant from a voir dire during which jurors' impartiality may be discussed”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.