Marshall v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the proof of liability at trial, and the jury instructions that accompanied it, would have sufficed if the defendant had been indicted simply for the murder itself, they were at variance with the wording of the indictment. Although we did not employ this term specifically, we essentially concluded in Rodriguez ... that such a variance was fatal: the defendant was convicted of a crime for which he had not been indicted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marshall v. Bristol Superior Court

2. “[1] where other theories (supported by evidence at a first trial) would support a defendant’s conviction in the second, see Commonwealth v. Fickett, [ 403 Mass. 194 , 526 N.E.2d 1064 , 1068 n. 4 (1988) ], or [2] where a conviction is reversed on appeal because of a variance between the indictment and the proof established at trial. See Commonwealth v. Ohanian, [ 373 Mass. 839 , 370 N.E.2d 695 , 698 (1977) ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marshall v. Bristol Superior Court