2012 Pa. Super. 168 - Commonwealth v. Johnson’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. “As this testimony makes clear, [counsel] never once met with [the defendant] in person before his trial on capital charges. In fact, [counsel] testified that he could only specifically recall one telephone conversation with [defendant], and that conversation lasted just twenty minutes to one-half hour. It should go without saying that no lawyer, no matter how talented and efficient, can possibly forge a meaningful relationship with his client and obtain adequate information to defend that client against first-degree murder charges in a single thirty-minute telephone conversation. Although a lawyer can always learn certain information from his client over the telephone, we simply would be discounting the gravity of a death penalty case were we to say that a lawyer representing a defendant in such a case has done his job effectively when he has spent only limited time on the telephone with his client. Indeed, the very nature of a capital case, typically quite involved and always subjecting the defendant to the possibility of death, clearly necessitates at least one in-person meeting between a lawyer and his client before trial begins. Without such a meeting, there is little to no hope that the client will develop a fundamental base of communication with his attorney, such that the client will freely share important information and work comfortably with the lawyer in developing a defense plan. Moreover, only a face-to-face meeting allows an attorney to assess the client's demean”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 176 - Commonwealth v. Brown

2. “Brooks ['] core premise is that at least one in-person meeting is necessary effectively to represent a defendant facing a first-degree murder trial. The meeting is not optional [and] cannot be an afterthought or a token visit made only to comply with the bare minimum standard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 176 - Commonwealth v. Brown

3. “no lawyer, no matter how talented and efficient, can possibly forge a meaningful relationship with his client and obtain adequate information to defend that client against first-degree murder charges in a single thirty-minute telephone conversation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 176 - Commonwealth v. Brown