299 Pa. Super. 172 - Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 554 So. 2d 887 - Shell v. State (1989), Commonwealth v. Ingber (1987)
2 district · 31 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Henry · Gleason v. United States · Commonwealth v. Davenport · Commonwealth v. Yount
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The juror] vividly demonstrated during voir dire that he would be likely not to be an impartial juror. He not only visibly manifested emotional distress but specifically expressed substantial doubts about his ability to be impartial at least five times. Although he acknowledged that “logically” he could separate the robbery and rape of his daughter from the robbery of appellant’s victims, he added at once that “emotionally, I can see that I don’t have full control.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“THE COURT: [Juror], you related to me that — about an incident that occurred to your daughter and during that incident you were emotionally upset, and I was aware of your emotion and that concerns me, so I’m going to ask you that supposing in this case — supposing in this case there would be some evidence like similar to — supposing one of the witnesses would say that this man— this is a hypothetical question, that this man wouldn’t do something to her, sexually, if he didn’t give the money or something of that sort; would that so overwhelm and emote [sic] you that you would be overwhelmed as to your conscience so that you couldn’t be fair to both sides? [JUROR]: Not only in answer to what you said but in thinking over my observation of my own reaction when I related this to you, I didn’t realize how strongly I feel about this and if I consider that, I’m not what I thought I was and trying to be fair and consider the evidence in such a case and— THE COURT: You believe you would be fair? [JUROR]: I think it would be difficult because I can see how I’m reacting. I didn’t realize how strongly I felt about this. THE COURT: The charges here are not involving sex at all. [JUROR]: I think just the fact that what happened to her in such an unusual condition, I think also was a robbery but at the last moment this is what the robbers did. THE COURT: Okay. Now, the fact that that happened in that case, which is certainly unrelated to the evidence in this case, I mean what happened in on”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]here, as here, a defendant is forced to use one of his peremptory challenges to excuse a prospective juror who should have been excused for cause, and then exhausts his [peremptory strikes] before the jury is seated, a new trial will be granted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.