347 Pa. Super. 93 - Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
28 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · Commonwealth v. Hubbard · Commonwealth v. Peterson · Commonwealth v. Triplett
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, ineffectiveness of prior counsel must be raised as an issue at the earliest stage in the proceedings at which counsel whose effectiveness is being challenged no longer represents the defendant. Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259 , 276 n. 6, 372 A.2d 687 , 695 n. 6 (1977). * * * * * * The initial inquiry which we make is whether appellant’s claims are of arguable merit. Commonwealth v. Parker, 503 Pa. 336, 341 , 469 A.2d 582, 584 (1983); Commonwealth v. Kenney, 317 Pa.Super. 175, 182 , 463 A.2d 1142, 1145 (1983) (quoting Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 307 Pa.Super. 63, 73 , 452 A.2d 1039, 1044 (1982)). Only if the underlying claim is of arguable merit must we inquire whether the strategy chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate the interest of his client. Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259 at 278 , 372 A.2d 687 at 696 (1977). The burden of establishing counsel’s ineffectiveness lies with the petitioner. Commonwealth v. McNeil, [ 506 Pa. 607 , 487 A.2d 802 ] supra; Commonwealth v. Kenney, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We will not “impose upon trial counsel [or appellate counsel] the qualities of a seer ... and counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to predict future developments in the law.” Commonwealth v. Triplett, 476 Pa. 83, 89-90 , 381 A.2d 877, 881 (1977). On the contrary, we examine counsel’s stewardship under standards as they existed at the time of his actions.”
1 later decision 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.