2006 Pa. Super. 378 - Commonwealth v. Lucarelli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On January 11, 2004, Michael Lee Bennett, his wife and four-year-old twins were sitting in a parked car in the parking lot of Kreiser’s Truck Stop in Mifflinville, Columbia County. Bennett looked into his side rear view mirror and saw [Appellee’s] car approaching. Bennett testified that he saw [Appellee’s] car spray some “liquid” out of its passenger-side, rear-quarter panel behind the right rear wheel onto his car. [Appellee’s] car sprayed the liquid onto the whole length of the driver’s side of Bennett’s car in a “steady stream” from four or five feet away. Bennett testified that the liquid “sort of smelled like WD-40 or like paint thinner.” Being concerned as to the contents of the liquid, Bennett called 911 and talked to the authorities while he followed [Appellee’s] car. The chase resulted in a circuitous tour that ended back at Kreiser’s Truck Stop. The police arrived shortly thereafter, followed by the local Mifflinville Volunteer Fire Company, the Bloomsburg Volunteer Fire Company HAZMAT Team, emergency medical technicians and the personnel and staff of Minuteman Spill Response, Inc. The police arrested [Appellee], the authorities quarantined Bennett’s car, and an ambulance took Bennett and his family to Berwick Hospital’s emergency room decontamination area. Upon examination of [Appellee’s] car, the police discovered that it was rigged up with an intricate system to pump and spray a liquid substance from two different ports in the right side. A pump was connected to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Lucarelli

2. “March 4, 2004: The trial court appointed Daniel Lynn, Esquire, to serve as Appellee’s stand-by counsel. March 12, 2004: Appellee posted $100,000 cash bond. March 15, 2004: Robert Kurtz, Esquire, entered his appearance for Appellee by filing a motion for bail reduction. March 19, 2004: Mr. Kurtz withdrew his appearance. Between March 19 and April 7, 2004: Appellee retained Thomas Marsilio, Esquire, to represent him. Mr. Marsilio filed a request for a bill of particulars and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. April 7, 2004: Mr. Marsilio represented Appellee at an evidentiary hearing on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. June 17, 2004: Mr. Marsilio petitioned to withdraw as counsel, which Appellee responded to by filing a pro se “Petition for Due Process Violation and Attorney Misconduct.” July 8, 2004: The trial court held a hearing on Mr. Marsilio’s motion to withdraw. The court granted the withdrawal request and suggested that Appellee “get somebody else to look at his case.” Appellee explained to the trial court that he did not have any money because he had already paid Mr. Marsilio $10,000.00. The court informed Appellee that he could apply for a public defender, but Appellee stated that the public defender’s office did not “want him.” Appellee insisted that he did not want Mr. Marsilio to withdraw as his attorney. July 13, 2004: The trial court held a hearing regarding Appellee’s trial date, in which Appellee appeared pro se and asked to be represented by a pub”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Lucarelli

3. “(1) whether the defendant understands that he has a right to be represented by counsel and the right to free counsel if he is indigent, (2) whether the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him and the elements of each of those charges, (3) whether the defendant is aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged, (4) whether the defendant understands that if he waives the right to counsel he will still be bound by all the normal rules of procedure and that counsel would be familiar with these rules, (5) whether the defendant understands that there are possible defenses to these charges of which counsel might be aware, and if these defenses are not raised they may be lost permanently, and (6) whether the defendant understands that, in addition to defenses, the defendant has other rights that, if not timely asserted, may be lost permanently and that if errors occur and are not objected to or otherwise timely raised by the defendant, the objection to these errors may be lost permanently.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 241 - Commonwealth v. Patterson