Commonwealth v. Levinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On principle the objection [that not all the testimony was heard live by each juror] seems to us not well taken. Since all the evidence adduced before a grand jury — cer tainly when the accused does not appear — is aimed at proving guilt, the absence of some jurors during some part of the hearings will ordinarily merely weaken the prosecution’s case. If what the absentees actually hear is enough to satisfy them, there would seem to be no reason why they should not vote. Against this we can think of nothing except the possibility that some of the evidence adduced by the prosecution might conceivably turn out to be favorable to the accused; and that, if the absentees had heard it, they might have refused to vote a true bill. No one can be entirely sure that this can never occur; but it appears to us so remote a chance that it should be left to those instances in which it can be made to appear that the evidence not heard was of that character, in spite of the extreme difficulty of ever proving what was the evidence before a grand jury. Indeed, the possibility that not all who vote will hear all the evidence, is a reasonable inference from the fact that sixteen is a quorum. Were the law as the relator argues, it would practically mean that all jurors present at the beginning of any case, must remain to the end, for it will always be impossible to tell in advance whether twelve will eventually vote a true bill, and if they do, who those twelve will be. The result of such a doctri”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Levinson

2. ““This emphasis, in my judgment, is inconsistent with the conclusion in MeCloskey and [Commonwealth v. Columbia Investment Corp., 457 Pa. 353 , 325 A.2d 289 (1974)] that a presentment is the equivalent to a preliminary hearing. I submit that it is not. As Mr. Justice Mosk, joined by Chief Justice Wright, observed in advocating that all persons accused of crime in California be afforded a post-indictment preliminary hearing, the preliminary hearing is the forum ‘which will permit the development not only of affirmative exculpatory evidence but also evidence gleaned from adequate cross-examination and confrontation of the state’s witnesses.’ Johnson v. Superior Court [ 15 Cal.3d 248, 269 , 124 Cal.Rptr. 32, 46 , 539 P.2d 792, 806 (1975)].” Commonwealth v. Levinson, supra, 239 Pa.Super. at 409 , 362 A.2d at 1092 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Bestwick

3. ““We do not here hold that every presentment of the 1974 Investigating Grand Jury which was returned after the six were added and which led to an indictment was invalid. Our holding here is based on our conclusion that on these particular facts the substitution was more than a mere irregularity and that its result was prejudicial to appellant. Furthermore, we note that appellant challenged the presentment prior to its submission, thus preserving his objection to its validity and his claim regarding the prejudice created thereby.” 239 Pa.Super. at 405 , 362 A.2d at 1090, n. 13 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 246 Pa. Super. 294 - Commonwealth v. Lee