2014 Pa. Super. 34 - Commonwealth v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 9545. Jurisdiction and proceedings [[Image here]] (b) Time for filing petition.— (1) Any petition under this subchap-ter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. (2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. [[Image here]]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 214 - Commonwealth v. Miller

2. “At no point during the testimony of either witness did the Commonwealth interject to clarify that a deal or leniency was offered to either[.] Therefore, [petitioner] had no reason to seek out transcripts of those witnesses’ sentencing hearings in unrelated cases to look for evidence of such deals. To conclude otherwise would suggest that [petitioner] should have assumed the Commonwealth’s witnesses were committing perjury, and the Commonwealth was improperly permitting them to do so. Due diligence does not require a defendant to make such unreasonable assumptions. See Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 Pa. 51 , 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (2010) (defining the due diligence required by the Commonwealth in Pa. R.Crim.P. 600 issues as “fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing that the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort”). Instead, [petitioner’s] efforts were adequately diligent under the circumstances of this case.”

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