Adkins v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Soto v. Commonwealth (2004), Ernst v. Commonwealth (2005)
59 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Colorado v. Connelly · United States v. Hensley · Minnesota v. Dickerson
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o obtain a new trial because of juror mendacity, 'a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire , and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a crime in order to gain money to buy drugs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ Combs, supra, held that the trial court erred by refusing to allow a defense witness to take the stand simply because the witness indicated that she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege in response to certain questions related to a collateral issue.” Although Combs dealt with the Compulsion Clause of the Sixth Amendment and this case implicates the Confrontation Clause, the same standards apply when a witness (whether called by the prosecution or defense) takes the stand intending to assert the privilege. The Sixth Amendment no more allows a defendant to keep a prosecution witness entirely off the stand than it allows the prosecution to keep a defense witness off the stand simply because that witness intends to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment privilege in response to some but not all questions. [Citations omitted, emphasis added.]”
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.