Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 Va. App. 59 - Vescuso v. Commonwealth

5 Va. App. 59 - Vescuso v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
7
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2014

16 state decisions

801987199020002010decided

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

Relies on Argersinger v. Hamlin · In re Oliver · Waller v. Georgia · Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk · Gannett Co Inc v. A

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

  1. “[T]he Commonwealth did not produce any evidence to show the necessity of transferring the [defendants’ trials] from the Not-toway Courthouse to the correctional center. The letter of the trial judge is not evidence and[,] even if we consider the letter, no facts or circumstances are disclosed concerning the [defendants’] trials ... to justify [holding] their trial in a prison. At most, the letter contains general conclusions of the trial judge. There were no findings of fact specifically related to [the defendants,] and neither [defendant] was given an opportunity to present evidence regarding the justification for holding their trial in a prison.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The practice of removing trials from the courthouse to a penitentiary, in the absence of any showing of overriding public necessity or justification, offends traditional notions of fairness and basic precepts of our criminal justice system.... We do not mean to imply that a trial may never be transferred from the courthouse to a penitentiary. However, before the constitutional right of a defendant to a public trial can be jeopardized, the record must contain findings of fact showing some clear and present overriding public interest or justification.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The practice of removing trials from the courthouse to a penitentiary, in the absence of any showing of overriding public necessity or justification, offends traditional notions of fairness and basic precepts of our criminal justice system. The public trial provisions of the [federal and state constitutions] envision that our trials will be held under circumstances which do not inhibit public attendance or freedom of access. We cannot think of any location within the Commonwealth that gives less freedom of access than ... a prison.... Furthermore, the character of a prison facility is fundamentally different from that of a courtroom at the public courthouse.”
    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.