Foley v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 35 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Any attempt to suppress a witness' testimony by the accused, whether by persuasion, bribery, or threat, or to induce a witness not to appear at the trial or to swear falsely, or to interfere with the process of the court is evidence tending to show guilt.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Major v. Commonwealth · Tamme v. Commonwealth

2. “As to Juror A: “When asked her feelings about the killings, she related that she knew others who felt he was probably guilty and that she felt the same .... She knew Appellant was accused of four other murders.” As to Juror B: “He couldn’t recollect if he had ever said that Appellant was guilty. He didn’t think that he had made such a statement, but he could not say for sure.” As to Juror C: “[She] heard people remark that the trial would have to be moved because many in Laurel County had already formed an opinion. She had read about the Vaughn killings two years ago and was aware that Appellant was charged with other killings.” As to Juror D: “He knew that Appellant had been arrested for murder and was suspected of other killings ... [He] admitted under questioning from defense counsel that most of the people in the community at that time believed that Appellant had killed both Vaughn brothers.” As to Juror E: “[He] could remember rumors of bodies found in a septic tank.” As to Juror F: “[He] recalled the [newspaper referring to Appellant as an FBI informant who had been suspected of a previous killing.” As to Juror G: “[She] remembered reading that Appellant was an FBI informant. Upon direct questioning by defense counsel, she stated that she was not sure if she could remove all information from her mind during the trial and deliberations." As to Juror H: “She knew that Appellant was accused of killing four other persons and that four bodies were found in a septic tank.” As”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Foley v. Parker · Foley v. Parker

3. “It makes no difference that the jurors claimed they could give the defendants a fair trial. As we held in Pennington v. Commonwealth, [ 316 S.W.2d 221 (Ky. 1958) ] “[i]t is the probability of bias or prejudice that is determinative in ruling on a challenge for cause;” and in Tayloe v. Commonwealth, [ 335 S.W.2d 556 (Ky. 1960) ] “the conditions were such that their connections would probably subconsciously affect their decision of the case adversely to the defendants”; and in Marsch v. Commonwealth, [ 743 S.W.2d 830 (1987) ] “their statements, given in response to leading questions, that they would disregard all previous information, opinions and relationships should not have been taken at face value.” Pennington, Tayloe, and Marsch stand for the principle that objective bias renders a juror legally partial, despite his claim of impartiality.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Foley v. Parker · Foley v. Parker