Parker v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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. “The interaction of RCr 9.12 and RCr 6.18 allows the charges brought in separate indictments to be joined for trial only when the offenses are “of the same or similar character” or are “based on the same acts or transactions connectéd together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.” When the conditions set forth in RCr 6.18 and RCr 9.12 are present, the trial judge has broad discretion to allow the joinder of offenses charged in separate indictments. We review such decisions for abuse of discretion. Nevertheless, to be reversible, an erroneous joinder of offenses must be accompanied by “a showing of prejudice” to the defendant. This showing of prejudice cannot be based on mere speculation, but must be supported by the record. [[Image here]] [A] significant factor in identifying prejudice from joining offenses for a single trial is the extent to which evidence of one offense would be inadmissible in the trial of the other offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jerard Garrett v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

2. “Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 6.20 permits the joinder for trial of two or more defendants if “they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.” Joint trials are a mainstay of our system, as they give the jury the best perspective on all the evidence and thus increase the likelihood of proper verdicts and avoid the possibility of inconsistent ones. Conflicting versions of what happened, we have thus noted, “is a reason for rather than against a joint trial.” ... RCr 9.16, on the other hand, requires that trials be severed “if it appears that a defendant or the Commonwealth is or will be prejudiced” by the joinder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Quisenberry v. Commonwealth

3. “(1) when there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's admonition and there is a strong likelihood that the effect of the inadmissible evidence would be devastating to the defendant, ... or (2) when the question was asked without a factual basis and was "inflammatory" or "highly prejudicial."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hilton v. Commonwealth