Commonwealth v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Commonwealth v. Howard (1994), Commonwealth v. Stokes (1992)
56 state decisions
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 Chapman v. State of California · Michigan v. Long · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Owens · Russell v. United States
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he specific constitutionally mandated “no-adverse inference” charge may not be replaced by a patchwork of less direct instructions.... Juries must be told in no uncertain terms that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant’s failure to take the stand.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are mindful that, for strategical reasons, a defendant and his or her counsel may determine that defendant’s right to remain silent under Article 1, Section 9 is best served by requesting that a “no-adverse-inference” charge not be given to the jury, in order to avoid drawing attention to defendant’s failure to testify. The “fundamental” right at stake here is the right not to be “compelled to give evidence against [oneself]” from which the “no-adverse-inference” rule derives. Thus, if defendant and his or her counsel determine that the fundamental right to remain silent is best served by not drawing attention to defendant’s silence, the derivative right (i.e., the “no-adverse-inferenee” instruction), may be validly waived. In such cases, an explicit waiver by defendant is required.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“3.10A (Crim) DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY NOT EVIDENCE OF GUILT It is entirely up to the defendant in every criminal trial whether or not to testify. He has an absolute right founded on the Constitution to remain silent. You must not draw any inference of guilt from the fact that the defendant did not testify.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.