339 Pa. Super. 320 - Commonwealth v. McGuire’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Weiskerger (1989), 371 Pa. Super. 315 - Commonwealth v. Delligatti (1988)
35 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 Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · New Yorker Magazine, Inc. v. Gerosa · 62 Cal. 2d 769 - People v. Perez · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roberts
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.
“In its effort to deter governmental conduct which “induces or encourages” citizens to commit crimes, the Legislature has defined improper conduct in two ways. Should law enforcement agents misrepresent the nature of the conduct encouraged, such that civilians are induced to believe that the encouraged behavior is lawful, an entrapment will have been perpetrated for purposes of § 313(a)(1).... Entrapment is also defined as the use of “methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk, that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.” § 313(a)(2). Again, a particular defendant’s attitude is not relevant; he need not prove that he was not “ready to commit” the crime. Rather, he must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the methods of persuasion directed toward him, if utilized again, present a substantial risk that otherwise honest, law-abiding citizens may at some time be ensnared. As the statutory definitions reveal, then, Pennsylvania’s entrapment statute addresses the concern over “unconventional” investigatory methods, and the potentialities inherent in these overreaching tactics. As such, the analysis only incidentally involves a particular defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) General rule. — A public law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either: (1) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or (2) employing methods .of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it. (b) Burden.of Proof. — Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person -.prosecuted for- an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a .preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he objective approach conceives the entrapment defense as aimed at deterring police wrongdoing. The defense provides a sanction for overzealous and reprehensible police behavior comparable to the exclusionary rule. The focus of the defense is on what the police do and not on what kind of person the particular defendant is — whether he is innocent or predisposed to crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.