2006 Pa. Super. 119 - Commonwealth v. Sampson’s Empirical Analysis
2006
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 Strickland v. Washington · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Basemore · Commonwealth v. Howard · Commonwealth v. DeJesus
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.
“In reviewing prosecutorial remarks to determine their prejudicial quality, comments cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather, must be considered in the context in which they were made. Generally, comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the avoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility towards the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n defining what constitutes impermissible conduct during closing argument, Pennsylvania follows Section 5.8 of the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards. Section 5.8 provides: Argument to the jury. (a) The prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record. It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw. (b) It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor to express his personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant. (c) The prosecutor should not use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. (d) The prosecutor should refrain from argument which would divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling law, or by making predictions of the consequences of the jury’s verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Evidence of good character may by itself raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and justify a verdict of not guilty. You must weigh and consider the evidence of good character along with the other evidence in the case. If on all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, you must find him not guilty.”
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.