255 Pa. Super. 147 - Commonwealth v. Harmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant argues that his waiver of jury trial was not knowing and intelligent because the lower court did not hold an on-the-record colloquy in conformance with Pa.R. Crim.P. 1101. However, in Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368 , 312 A.2d 597 (1973), the Supreme Court declined to make a per se prophylactic rule reversing convictions for failure to comply with Rule 1101, and held instead that there could be adequate substitutes for the colloquy. In Williams the substitute was a subsequent PCHA hearing at which the defendant testified that he knew what a jury was and that he could have a jury trial if he wanted one. On the particular facts of Williams the Court found the subsequent hearing inadequate because it did not indicate that the defendant knew the essential ingredients of a jury trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 289 Pa. Super. 278 - Commonwealth v. Fortune

2. “WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL AND NOW, January 10, 1979, comes the defendant and pleads not guilty and with the consent of his attorney, and the attorney for the Commonwealth and the approval of the judge, waives a jury trial and elects to be tried by a judge without a jury, fully understanding that if he were tried by a jury: 1. The jury would be chosen from members of the community thereby producing a jury of his peers. 2. That any verdict rendered by a jury must be unanimous and, 3. That he would be permitted to participate in the selection of a jury panel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 298 Pa. Super. 294 - Commonwealth v. Volk