2016 Pa. Super. 19 - Commonwealth v. Penn’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. “A criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury is explicitly guaranteed by Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The jury selection process is crucial to the preservation of that right,... It must be remembered the purpose of the voir dire examination is to provide an opportunity to counsel to assess the qualifications of prospective jurors to serve. It is therefore appropriate to use such an examination to disclose fixed opinions or to expose other reasons for disqualification. Thus, the inquiry must be directed at ascertaining whether the venireperson is competent and capable of rendering a fair, impartial, and unbiased verdict. The law also recognizes that prospective jurors were not cultivated in hermetically sealed environments free of all beliefs, conceptions, and views. The question relevant to a determination of qualification is whether any biases or prejudices can be put aside upon the proper instruction of the court. A challenge for cause to service by a prospective juror should be sustained and that juror excused where that juror demonstrates through his conduct and answers a likelihood of prejudice. The decision whether to disqualify a venireman is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a palpable abuse of that discretion. Stated another way, the test of disqualification is the juror’s ability and willingness to eliminate the influence of his scruples and render a verdict according to the evidence. T”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 137 - Commonwealth v. Golphin

2. “[w]here, as here, a defendant is forced to use one of his peremptory challenges to excuse a prospective juror who should have been excused for cause, and then exhausts his [peremptory strikes] before the jury is seated, a new trial will be granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trigg v. Children's Hosp. of Pittsburgh of UPMC

3. “'when the potential juror has such a close relationship, be it familial, financial or situational, with parties, counsel, victims, or witnesses, that the court will presume the likelihood of prejudice.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 137 - Commonwealth v. Golphin