318 Pa. Super. 76 - Commonwealth v. Hubble’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On review, our responsibility is ‘to determine whether the record supports the factual findings of the court below and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings.’ Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 460 Pa. 516, 521 , 333 A.2d 892, 895 (1975). “If the suppression court has determined that the evidence is admissible, ‘this Court will consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted.’ Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 264, 280 , 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976); see Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 604 , 81 S.Ct. 1860, 1878 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961) (Opinion of Frankfurter, J.)” Commonwealth v. Brown, 473 Pa. 562, 566 , 375 A.2d 1260, 1262 (1977).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hubble · 406 Pa. Super. 382 - Commonwealth v. Gelber

2. “The record in this case establishes beyond peradventure of a doubt that after appellant had clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and after he had attempted, unsuccessfully, to reach counsel by telephone, he was questioned further by Trooper Shimko. That he responded to such police-initiated questioning does not establish a waiver of the right to counsel previously invoked. “For a waiver ... to be effective, the reversal of the defendant’s position must have been initiated by him.” (citation omitted) Here, it was not appellant who, after asserting his rights, indicated a desire to waive them without further activity on the part of the police. Instead, it was the police who initiated the chain of events which culminated in appellant’s inculpatory statement. This was improper. Appellant had requested and was entitled to have counsel present. His statement given in response to police questioning and without counsel should have been suppressed.”

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

3. “In Edwards , the United States Supreme Court held that: when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interroga tion even if he has been advised of his rights. We further hold that an accused, such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. ____We ... emphasize that it is inconsistent with Miranda and its progeny for the authorities, at their instance, to reinterrogate an accused in custody if he has clearly asserted his right to counsel.”

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