2004 Pa. Super. 400 - Commonwealth v. Neff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We cannot accept the statement of jurors as to what transpired in the jury room as to the propriety or impropriety of a juror’s conduct. To do so, would destroy the security of all verdicts and go far toward weakening the efficacy of trial by jury, so well grounded in our system of jurisprudence. Jurors cannot impeach their own verdict. Their deliberations are secret and their inviolability must be closely guarded. Only in clear cases of improper conduct by jurors, evidenced by competent testimony, should a verdict, which is fully sup ported by the evidence, be set aside and a new trial granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 144 - Commonwealth v. Nypaver

2. “The exception allows “post trial testimony of extraneous influences which might have affected (prejudiced) the jury during their deliberations.” Pittsburgh Nat’l Bank v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 493 Pa. 96, 101 , 425 A.2d 383, 386 (1981). Extraneous information has been defined as information that was not provided in open court or vocalized by the trial court via instructions. Boring v. LaMarca, 435 Pa.Super. 487, 493 , 646 A.2d 1199, 1202 (1994) ... Under no circumstances may jurors testify about their subjective reasoning processes. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 144 - Commonwealth v. Nypaver