Commonwealth v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 58 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) The events leading up to the murder ... [Petitioner], was convicted of the premeditated murder of Freddys Abreu. [Petitioner] and the victim lived in the same apartment building. [Petitioner] shared an apartment with his father, his girlfriend, Melissa Gaulin, and Gaulin’s baby. 5 The victim shared an apartment with his wife, Jaquay Abreu, and their daughter. The two couples were friendly with one another and visited one another’s apartments. Jaquay Abreu, the victim’s wife, testified that she also spoke with [petitioner] on the telephone. The victim sold crack cocaine and, shortly after moving into the apartment building, asked [petitioner] to join him in selling drugs. [Petitioner] and the victim sold crack cocaine out of the apartment building for approximately two or three months before the murder. Sometime before the murder, the victim purchased a silver handgun. Because the victim’s wife objected to having a handgun in their home, the victim asked [petitioner] to keep the gun for him. The victim also gave [petitioner] approximately $1,000 worth of cocaine to hold. One day later, the victim asked [petitioner] to return the gun and the cocaine. [Petitioner] refused to do so. An argument ensued. Two days later, [petitioner]^ girl friend, Gaulin, reported to the police that the victim had been looking for [petitioner] and had threatened to kill [Gaulin], Afraid, Gaulin went to stay with [petitioner’s sister, (b) The murder. The next day, the victim, who apparently was f”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. Spencer

2. “"A defendant’s silence after the police have given the warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), may not be used against that defendant.... [T]o do so would 'penalize' the invocation of the right to silence.” Commonwealth v. Waite, 422 Mass. 792, 797 , 665 N.E.2d 982 (1996), citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). See Commonwealth v. Person, supra at 140, 508 N.E.2d 88 . "Still, in a few situations evidence of silence is properly admitted because it is not 'used against' the accused.” Commonwealth v. Waite, supra at 798, 665 N.E.2d 982 , citing Commonwealth v. Habarek, 402 Mass. 105 , 520 N.E.2d 1303 (1988), S.C., 421 Mass. 1005 , 657 N.E.2d 228 (1995).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. Spencer

3. “A defendant’s silence after the police have given the warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), may not be used against that defendant.... [T]o do so would 'penalize' the invocation of the right to silence.” Commonwealth v. Waite, 422 Mass. 792, 797 , 665 N.E.2d 982 (1996), citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). See Commonwealth v. Person, supra at 140, 508 N.E.2d 88 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. Spencer