2005 Pa. Super. 245 - Commonwealth v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other and is capable of separation by the jury so that there is no danger of confusion[ ] or the offenses charged are based on the same act or transaction.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Knoble · 2013 Pa. Super. 287 - Commonwealth v. Kunkle

2. “Although a criminal defendant has the right to be represented by counsel, the right can be waived or forfeited. We find persuasive the Third Circuit’s distinction between waiver and forfeiture. United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1099-101 (3d Cir.1995). Waiver is “an intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right.” Id. at 1099 . It is well established that waiver of the right to counsel is valid only if it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(C); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Commonwealth v. Brazil, 549 Pa. 321, 325-26 , 701 A.2d 216, 218 (1997); Commonwealth v. Barnette, 445 Pa. 288, 290-91 , 285 A.2d 141, 142-43 (1971). By contrast, forfeiture, as defined by the Third Circuit, does not require that the defendant intend to relinquish a right, but rather may be the result of the defendant’s “extremely serious misconduct” or “extremely dilatory conduct.” United States v. Thomas, 357 F.3d 357, 362 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100-02 ). The Third Circuit acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the question of forfeiture of the right to counsel, nor on the level of misconduct or defiance that may give rise to the forfeiture. Fischetti v. Johnson, 384 F.3d 140, 152 (3d Cir.2004). Nonetheless, federal circuit courts have found forfeiture of the right to counsel under several circumstances, including when a defendant physically attacked hi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 214 - Commonwealth v. Coleman

3. “A change of venue is necessary ‘if a fair and impartial jury cannot be selected in the county in which the crime occurred,’ a determination that the trial court is best suited to make. Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 552 Pa. 420, 433-34 , 715 A.2d 1086, 1092 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1021 , 119 S.Ct. 1258 , 143 L.Ed.2d 354 (1999). Thus, in reviewing a denial of a motion for a change of venue, we will disturb the trial court’s decision only if it represents an abuse of discretion. Id. at 433 , 715 A.2d at 1092 . The mere occurrence of pre-trial publicity does not warrant a change of venue. In general, the defendant must show that the publicity led to actual prejudice. Id. at 434 , 715 A.2d at 1092 . However, under limited circumstances, e.g. after sensational, inflammatory, and slanted pre-trial publicity, the court will presume that the publicity was prejudicial. Id. Even if this presumption applies, the defendant must show that the ‘pre-trial publicity was so extensive, sustained, and pervasive that the community must be deemed to have been saturated with it, and that there was insufficient time between the publicity and the trial for any prejudice to have dissipated.’ Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 125 - Commonwealth v. Wimbush