2000 Pa. Super. 293 - Commonwealth v. Aguado’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ t]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth “need not be absolutely incompatible with [the] defendant’s innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the [jury] unless the evidence ‘be so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.’ ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 9 - Commonwealth v. Conaway · 2004 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Smith

2. “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 357 - Commonwealth v. Jones · 2005 Pa. Super. 37 - Commonwealth v. Forbes

3. “The decision to grant a new trial based on a challenge to the weight of the evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 436 , 648 A.2d 1177, 1189 (1994). “Appellate review, therefore, is a review of the exercise of discretion, not the underlying question whether the verdict is against ' the weight of the evidence.” Id. “Whereas a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial is aided by an . on-the-scene evaluation of the evidence, an appellate court’s review rests solely upon a cold record.” Id. at 436 , 648 A.2d at 1190 . Because of this disparity in vantage points, an appellate court may not merely substitute its opinion concerning the weight of the evidence for that of the trial court. Instead, the appellate court must assess whether the trial court has palpably abused its discretion. In making this assessment, we must examine the entire record to ascertain whether the trial judge’s reasons and factual basis can be supported. Id. “[When] the record adequately supports the trial court, the trial court has acted within the limits of its judicial discretion.” Id. at 436-37 , 648 A.2d at 1190 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 358 - Commonwealth v. Riley