375 Pa. Super. 330 - Commonwealth v. Rocco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The [United States] Supreme Court cases dealing with vindictive prosecution have recognized two distinct situations in which the appearance of vindictiveness may require inquiry and judicial intervention. The first is where a prosecutive decision is based on discriminatory grounds of race, religion, national origin or other impermissible classification. See e.g. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, [ 434 U.S. 357 , 98 S.Ct. 663 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978) ]. The other situation is where the accused is treated more harshly because he successfully exercised a lawful right, e.g. the right to seek a new trial. See e.g. Blackledge v. Perry, [ 417 U.S. 21 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974)]; North Carolina v. Pearce, [ 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969)]. # Hs Hi sfc * In subsequent cases applying Pearce , however, the Supreme Court has made clear that due process does not forbid enhanced sentence or charges; rather, only enhancement motivated by actual vindictiveness toward the defendant for having exercised his legal rights is forbidden. See United States v. Goodwin, [ 457 U.S. 368 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 , 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982) ] (presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness not warranted where defendant charged with felony after refusing to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges; prosecutor’s charging decision made before trial is less likely to be improperly motivated than decision made after trial); Bordenkircher, supra (Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohib”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 444 Pa. Super. 652 - Commonwealth v. Smith

2. “[A]ll of the charges brought against appellant arose out of the same factual nucleus. The discovery of the acts of appellant were obtained through a continuing undercover investigation by one team of prosecutorial agents. All the information relating to the present charges was available to the prosecution at the time the prior charges were filed. As such, the illegal conduct constituted a single criminal episode, which would have been subject to compulsory joinder had all of the charges been filed at one time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 2 - Commonwealth v. Reid

3. “due process does not forbid enhanced sentence or charges; rather, only enhancement motivated by actual vindictiveness toward the defendant for having exercised his [or her] legal rights is forbidden.”

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