Commonwealth v. Chaleumphong’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 11 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The assistant district attorney’s testimony, given over the objections of both defendants, was closely monitored by the judge to ensure there would be no vouching. His testimony was limited to an accounting of what he said to the cooperating witnesses, and the actions he took as to each during the course of the investigation. He merely outlined the history of the investigation to rebut insinuations of defense counsel that the investigation was result oriented. He did not express his personal belief in the credibility of any witness, or suggest that he had special information at his disposal from which he could verify the truthfulness of their testimony. The judge properly denied motions to strike the direct examination of the assistant district attorney, or alternatively, for a mistrial. The testimony was an appropriate response to the defense strategy, and it did not constitute vouching. Commonwealth v. Ciampa, supra. There was no error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 429 F. Supp. 2d 410 - CHALEUMPHONG v. Fico

2. “The judge instructed the jury that, if the Commonwealth proved beyond a reason able doubt that either or both defendants “participated in a joint venture with another person to commit an unlawful homicide while sharing that other person’s mental state of malice aforethought, and the Commonwealth also proved that the other person committed the unlawful homicide with extreme atrocity or cruelty,” then they would be warranted in returning a guilty verdict as to such defendant of murder in the first degree as a joint venturer. The judge added that “[i]t is not necessary for the Commonwealth to prove that [the defendants] had a conscious awareness that the acts were being committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty or that either of them desired the acts to be carried out in that manner.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 429 F. Supp. 2d 410 - CHALEUMPHONG v. Fico

3. “did not express his personal belief in the credibility of any witness or indicate that he had special knowledge to determine credibility”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Davis