262 Pa. Super. 508 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that the right to trial by jury includes a guarantee that the accused will get a fair trial before a panel of impartial jurors. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546 , 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965). A jury’s verdict must be based upon evidence presented in the course of the trial, not on extraneous commentary presented in the forum of public opinion by news media. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). If a juror’s decision is influenced by inflammatory news reports, an accused has been deprived of a fair trial and due process requires reversal of the conviction. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). In Commonwealth v. Bruno, 466 Pa. 245 , 352 A.2d 40 (1976), prejudicial publicity had occurred during trial. Several newspaper articles and radio spots disclosed the appellant’s confession, earlier suppressed because violative of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The trial court refused to question the jurors and denied sequestration. Rather, the court gave several general cautionary instructions. The supreme court found that no meaningful effort had been made to secure an unprejudiced jury panel. The appellant was accordingly awarded a new trial. The Bruno court observed: ‘When there is a possibility of highly prejudicial materials reaching the jury, the trial court must take appropriate protective action. Although the proper precautions are inevitably ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 305 Pa. Super. 364 - Commonwealth v. Rochester

2. ““Considering all the factors advanced by appellant, — The location of the apartment, the duration of the surveillance, the use of binoculars and of the star-tron — it remains irrefutably clear that just as in Hernley, the occupants in the apartment could have precluded all observation by the single expedient of curtaining or otherwise covering the windows. Applying the standard of a balancing of interests between the security of public order by detection and prevention of crime and a person’s immunity from police interference in his privacy, we find that the surveillance in the case did not violate the appellant’s fourth amendment rights.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wheeler v. State

3. “[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210 , 87 S.Ct. 424, 427 , 17 L.Ed.2d 312 ; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563 , 47 S.Ct. 746, 748 , 71 L.Ed. 1202 . But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. See Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 2 ; [ 80 S.Ct. 1431 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 ; ] Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 , [ 24 L.Ed. 877 ],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 498 F. Supp. 497 - United States v. Bifield