Commonwealth v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial judge did not invade the autonomy of the jurors’ deliberations. After the judge received a note from the jury indicating that one of the jurors allegedly had made a biased statement, the judge properly conduct an individual voir dire with each juror. See Commonwealth v. Laguer, 410 Mass. 89, 97 , 571 N.E.2d 371 (1991). After finding no bias, she ordered the jury to continue with their deliberations. During the course of the voir dire, the judge learned that eleven jurors favored conviction, while one juror favored acquittal. The defendant argues that the judge’s directive to the jury to continue to deliberations may have been interpreted by the jury as an implicit endorsement of the majority position over the one juror who favored acquittal. See Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 10, 14-15 , 545 N.E.2d 862 (1989). The record shows no impropriety by the judge. The transcript indicates that she was not coercive, did not attempt to influence their judgment, and in no way intimated to the jurors that she agreed or disagreed with their positions. She merely informed the jurors that she had found no evidence of juror bias and that they should continue to deliberate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clements v. Clarke · 635 F. Supp. 2d 26 - Clements v. Clarke

2. “We also reject the defendant's claim that the verdict of acquittal of Mattox and the verdict of guilty as to the defendant on the theory of joint venture are inconsistent verdicts which require reversal of the defendant's conviction of second degree murder. Each defendant was tried both on the theory of individual liability and joint venture.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1117 - Commonwealth v. Clements

3. “] (B) Whether the jury's special verdict, finding the defendant guilty as a joint venturer but not as the princip[al] of the crime of second degree murder was supported by sufficient evidence to convict? [the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clements v. Maloney