2003 Pa. Super. 80 - Commonwealth v. Lauro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Where the defendant moves to sever offenses not based on the same act or transaction that have been consolidated in a single indictment or information, or opposes joinder of separate indictments or informations, the court must therefore determine: [1] whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other; [2] whether such evidence is capable of separation by the jury so as to avoid danger of confusion; and, if the answers to these inquiries are in the affirmative, [3] whether the defendant will be unduly prejudiced by the consolidation of offenses.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Ferguson · 2016 Pa. Super. 247 - Commonwealth v. Richard

2. “Evidence of good character offered by a defendant in a criminal prosecution must be limited to his general reputation for the particular trait or traits of character involved in the commission of the crime charged. Such evidence must relate to a period at or about the time the offense was committed ... and must be established by testimony of witnesses as to the community opinion of the individual in question, not through specific acts or mere rumor. In a rape case, evidence of the character of the defendant would be limited to presentation of testimony concerning his general reputation in the community with regard to such traits as non-violence or peaceableness, quietness, good moral character, chastity, and disposition to observe good order.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Radecki · 2011 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Johnson

3. “In Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31 , 720 A.2d 693, 700 (1998), our Supreme Court recognized that a PCRA petitioner’s right to appointed counsel, guaranteed by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 904 (formerly 1504), requires “an enforceable right to effective post-conviction counsel.” Therefore, PCRA counsel’s assistance may be examined on appeal from the denial of PCRA relief. Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233 , 724 A.2d 293, 303 (1999). Claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness must be raised at the first opportunity at .which the defendant is represented by counsel other than the attorney whose effectiveness is challenged. Id. at 302 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Malone · 2003 Pa. Super. 474 - Commonwealth v. Gallman