Commonwealth v. Lynn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law. This [C]ourt's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary. As with all questions of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo[.] To the extent that the factual findings of the trial court impact its double jeopardy ruling, we apply a more deferential standard of review to those findings: Where issues of credibility and weight of the evidence are concerned, it is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment based on a cold record for that of the trial court. The weight to be accorded conflicting evidence is exclusively for the fact finder, whose findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Graham , 109 A.3d 733 , 736 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibit retrial where prosecutorial misconduct during trial provokes a criminal defendant into moving for a mistrial. See Oregon v. Kennedy , 456 U.S. 667 , 679, 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982) ; Commonwealth v. Simons , 514 Pa. 10 , 522 A.2d 537 , 540 (1987). However, Article 1, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution offers broader protection than its federal counterpart in that the double jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits retrial of a defendant not only when pro”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Washington

2. “It is well settled in Pennsylvania that a defendant is entitled to an immediate interlocutory appeal as of right from an order denying a non-frivolous motion to dismiss on state or federal double jeopardy grounds.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Washington

3. “While an order denying a motion to dismiss charges on double jeopardy grounds is technically interlocutory, it is appealable as of right as long as the trial court certifies the motion as non-frivolous.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Washington