284 Pa. Super. 601 - Commonwealth v. Bullock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[WJhere, under all the circumstances of the case, the verdict rendered is a just one, the language of the prosecuting officer which will justify a reversal must be such that its unavoidable effect would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their own minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, so that they could not fairly weigh in his behalf such circumstances of doubt, extenuation, or degree of guilt that may be present in the case, and thus make them unable to render a true verdict, (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 301 Pa. Super. 543 - Commonwealth v. Visconto

2. “Prejudice has been consistently found by our judiciary only where the remarks of the prosecutor have been unsupported by any factual evidence, and thus, have merely reflected the prosecutor’s personal judgment concerning the defendant’s veracity, (citations omitted) It is well established that the prosecutor’s closing argument must be limited to the facts of the record and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Commonwealth v. Bullock, 284 Pa.Super. 601, 608 , 426 A.2d 657, 661 (1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 301 Pa. Super. 543 - Commonwealth v. Visconto