Commonwealth v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Lawrence Lines v. David Larkins Warden (2000), Doctor v. Walters (1996)
34 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 Molinaro v. New Jersey · Estelle v. Dorrough · Commonwealth v. Passaro · Com. v. Craddock · Commonwealth v. Coleman
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant's voluntary escape acts as a per se forfeiture of his right of appeal.... Such a forfeiture is irrevocable and continues despite the defendant's capture or voluntary return to custody. Thus, by choosing to flee from justice, appellant forever forfeited his right to appeal.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... a defendant’s resort to escape constitutes a flagrant and deliberate bypass of the entire judicial process. The escape of a convicted defendant from confinement may properly be considered a rejection of the legitimate means afforded the defendant for challenging his conviction and imprisonment. Thus, by choosing to flee and live as a fugitive, a defendant forfeits the right to have his claims considered.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudi- cable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims.”
1 later decision 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.