311 Pa. Super. 259 - Commonwealth v. Giaccio’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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. “In all cases the defendant may waive a jury trial with the consent of his attorney, if any, and approval by a judge of the court in which the case is pending, and elect to be tried by a judge without a jury. The judge shall ascertain from the defendant whether this is a knowing and intelligent waiver, and such colloquy shall appear on the record. The waiver shall be in writing, made a part of the record and shall be in the following form: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE COUNTY OF_CRIMINAL ACTION NO_OF _ 19_ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL AND NOW,-, 19_, comes the defendant and pleads not guilty and with the consent of his attorney and the approval of the judge waives a jury trial and elects to be tried by a judge without a jury. Defendant Attorney for Defendant Judge”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Sherman · 226 N.J. Super. 81 - State v. Fiorilla

2. “Instead, in deciding whether to allow a defendant to waive his right to a jury trial, the trial court must “tak[e] into account all relevant considerations.” Commonwealth v. Sorrell, supra, 500 Pa. 355, at 360 , 456 A.2d 1326, 1328 . It is not clear what procedure the trial court should follow, or which considerations it should weigh, in deciding whether to approve a waiver. It is clear that under Rule 1101 the defendant must have “the consent of his attorney, if any,” and also the “approval” of “a judge of the court in which the case is pending.” In addition, Sorrell suggests that while the prosecutor’s view as to whether the defendant should be permitted to waive his right to a jury trial is “a relevant consideration,”, 500 Pa. at 360, 456 A.2d at 1328 , “Rule 1101 does not deem any one fact or circumstances controlling,” id. It is possible to read the rule as providing that if the judge is satisfied that the defendant’s waiver of a. jury trial is “knowing and intelligent” ... then approval should be given. But we are not persuaded that this is the way to read the rule. Instead, we believe that under the rule, even if satisfied that the defendant’s waiver is “knowing and intelligent,” still the judge has discretion to decide whether to approve the waiver. In Commonwealth v. Correa, 485 Pa. 376 , 402 A.2d 1011 (1979), the lower court refused to accept the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Boyd

3. “We acknowledge that [Lee and Garrison] don’t go very far in defining the boundaries of the lower court’s discretion when it is asked to approve a defendant’s waiver of a jury trial.[ 2 ] But in the absence of any provision in Rule 1101 defining these boundaries, we must proceed case-by-case. We therefore reverse and remand for new trial, with instructions to the lower court that if appellant on re-trial again states his intention to waive a jury trial, the court should proceed under Rule 1101 to decide whether to approve the whiver, with the additional instruction that if the court decides to disapprove the waiver, it should state the reasons for its decision, so that on any further appeal we may decide whether it has acted within its discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Sherman