312 Pa. Super. 578 - Commonwealth v. Trafford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant’s presence at the scene of the fire is certainly insufficient to establish guilt. Nor is the added factor of his apparently false statements as to his whereabouts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. ‘A man charged with a crime is not required to explain anything. It is the Commonwealth’s obligation to prove guilt____ [I]f the defendant does speak and speaks unconvincingly or self-contradictorily, but the Commonwealth has not made out a prima facie case, a resulting conviction will not be allowed to stand.’ The Commonwealth can not use apparent inconsistencies in the appellant’s version of the events surrounding the fire to make up for deficiencies in its own case. Of course, appellant’s deceptions would lead one to suspect that perhaps mischief was afoot, but his willingness to mislead provides no basis in logic for concluding that he engaged in the deliberate felonious act of arson. While the evidence in the instant case may have cast a degree of suspicion on appellant, it is clear that ‘suspicion is never accepted in a court of justice as a substitute for proof.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 409 Pa. Super. 313 - Commonwealth v. Scott