Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 454 A2D 732 - Adkins v. State

Adkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
March 1985
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Allen v. United States · Wilson v. State · Brown v. State · Jenkins v. State

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

  1. “However, a trial judge may not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict and, for that reason, any such charge must be carefully examined to determine its total effect on the jury in reaching a verdict.*** It is basic to our criminal law that a jury verdict must be unanimous and freely given and that, in order to convict, each individual juror must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it is likewise basic that there is no absolute necessity that the jury reach a verdict. The danger of a “dynamite charge” is that it may suggest to the jurors that these fundamental standards might be compromised in order that a verdict be reached. * * * Nevertheless, we believe that this danger can be eliminated by having the charge include an admonition that each individual juror not surrender his or her honest convictions and not to return any verdict contrary to the dictates of person al conscience. * * * Without such an admonition, any supplementary charge may be, for that reason alone, overly coercive.”
    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.