245 Pa. Super. 337 - Commonwealth v. Knight’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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, `[i]f, in the representation of more than one defendant, a conflict of interest arises, the mere existence of such conflict vitiates the proceedings, even though no actual harm results. The potentiality that such harm may result, rather than that such harm did result, furnishes the appropriate criterion.' Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 406 Pa. 45, 48 , 176 A.2d 641, 643 (1962). Second, a defendant must demonstrate that a conflict of interest actually existed at trial, because `dual representation alone does not amount to a conflict of interest.' Commonwealth v. Wilson, 429 Pa. 458, 463 , 240 A.2d 498, 501 (1968); Commonwealth ex rel. Corbin v. Myers, 419 Pa. 139 , 213 A.2d 356 (1965), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1013 , 87 S.Ct. 1361 , 18 L.Ed.2d 445 (1967). Third, `[t]o make the dual representation rise to a true conflict, appellant need not show that actual harm resulted,. . . but he must at least show the possibility of harm. . . .' Commonwealth v. Wilson, supra, 429 Pa. at 463 , 240 A.2d 501 . Fourth, appellant will satisfy the requirement of demonstrating possible harm, if he can show, inter alia, `that he had a defense inconsistent with that advanced by the other client, or that counsel neglected his case in order to give the other client a more spirited defense.' Id. Accord, Commonwealth v. Cox, 441 Pa. 64, 69 , 270 A.2d 207, 209 (1970) (plurality opinion).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 252 Pa. Super. 148 - Commonwealth v. Duffy

2. “Our dual representation cases make several principles clear. First, “[i]f, in the representation of more than one defendant, a conflict of interest arises, the mere existence of such conflict vitiates the proceedings, even though no actual harm results. The potentiality that such harm may result, rather than that such harm did result, furnishes the appropriate criterion.” Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 406 Pa. 45, 48 , 176 A.2d 641, 643 (1962).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 270 Pa. Super. 312 - Commonwealth v. Yannariello