2002 Pa. Super. 83 - Commonwealth v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Katz v. United States · United States v. Matlock · Walter v. United States · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Rasmussen · Commonwealth v. Peterkin
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, [an a]ppellant must establish, first, that others similarly situated were not prosecuted for similar conduct, and, second, that the Commonwealth's discriminatory prosecutorial selection was based on impermissible grounds such as race, religion, the exercise of some constitutional right, or any other such arbitrary classification. The burden is on the defense to establish the claim; it is error to shift the burden to the prosecution to establish or refute the claim. Because of the doctrine of separation of power, the courts will not lightly interfere with an executive's decision of whom to prosecute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a defendant must establish, first, that others similarly situated were not prosecuted for similar conduct, and , second, that the Commonwealth's discriminatory prosecutorial selection was based on impermissible grounds such as race, religion, the exercise of some constitutional right, or any other such arbitrary classification. The burden is on the defense to establish the claim; it is error to shift the burden to the prosecution to establish or refute the claim. Because of the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts will not lightly interfere with an executive's decision of whom to prosecute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he totality of the circumstances test is employed to determine whether an affidavit of probable cause sets forth sufficient facts for the necessary finding of probable cause to support a search warrant and, ‘if a search warrant is based on an affidavit containing deliberate or knowing misstatements of material fact, the search warrant is invalid’.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.