2003 Pa. Super. 309 - Commonwealth v. Bracey’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2024
10 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 Ingalls v. Roosevelt County · Mims v. Browning Manufacturing · Optimal Data Corp. v. United States · In Re Nomination Petition of Wesley · King v. Pennsylvania
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The decision to declare a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the court and will not be reversed absent a “flagrant abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Cottam, 420 Pa.Super. 311 , 616 A.2d 988, 997 (1992); Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 415 Pa.Super. 564 , 609 A.2d 1368, 1370-71 (1992). A mistrial is an “extreme remedy ... [that] ... must be granted only when an incident is of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to deprive defendant of a fair trial.” Commonwealth v. Vazquez, 421 Pa.Super. 184 , 617 A.2d 786, 787-88 (1992) (citing Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 511 Pa. 169 , 512 A.2d 603 (Pa.1986), and Commonwealth v. Brinkley, 505 Pa. 442 , 480 A.2d 980 (Pa.1984)). A trial court may remove taint caused by improper testimony through curative instructions. Commonwealth v. Savage, 529 Pa. 108 , 602 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Pa.1992); Commonwealth v. Richardson, 496 Pa. 521 , 437 A.2d 1162 (Pa.1981). Courts must consider all surrounding circumstances before finding that curative instructions were insufficient and the extreme remedy of a mistrial is required. Richardson, 496 Pa. at 526-527 , 437 A.2d at 1165 . The circumstances which the court must consider include whether the improper remark was intentionally elicited by the Commonwealth, whether the answer was responsive to the question posed, whether the Commonwealth exploited the reference, and whether the curative instruction was appropriate. Id.”
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.