375 Pa. Super. 43 - Commonwealth v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably 396 Pa. Super. 436 - Commonwealth v. French (1990), 433 Pa. Super. 432 - Commonwealth v. La (1994)
34 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 Bruton v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus · Herko v. United States · Commonwealth v. Griscavage
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Five men conspired in the murder of James “Muscles” Reynolds, who died in the early morning hours of September, 1983, of seven gunshot wounds, three to the head and four to the body. The five men involved in the murder include: Craig Murphy (who was separately tried and convicted of first degree murder), appellant, Rodney Wells, Esau Burroughs and Morris Willis. The latter four were tried together subsequent to Murphy’s trial. The murder was motivated by the victim’s drug dealings with Murphy, who was characterized as the principal in the shooting. Murphy, appellant and Wells actually shot the victim, and Burroughs was involved in planning the murder, as was Willis, who arranged to have the victim meet his executioners in a deserted playground in the early morning of September 1, 1983. Commonwealth witness Keith Johnson testified that at approximately 10:30 p.m. on August 31, 1983, he overheard Murphy talking with appellant, Burroughs and Wells in the Motorcycle Club in Philadelphia. The four were plotting the manner in which they were going to murder a man referred to as Muscles. Murphy and appellant displayed their guns to Wells and Burroughs. Johnson heard appellant say “I’m going to kill the [expletive]” and “[I’m] not going to be playing.” N.T., 12/11/85 vol.2, at 6-8. Murphy, appellant and Wells then departed, and when Johnson asked Burroughs if the three actually intended to shoot someone, the latter answered affirmatively. Murphy, appellant and Wells returned to the c”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[WJhere the language of the district attorney is intemperate, uncalled for and improper, a new trial is not necessarily required. Commonwealth v. Crittenton, 326 Pa. 25, 31 , 191 A. 358 (1937); Commonwealth v. McHugh, 187 Pa.Super. 568, 577 , 145 A.2d 896 (1958). The language must be such that its “unavoidable effect would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, so that they could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Simon, 432 Pa. 386, 394 , 248 A.2d 289, 292 (1968). See also, Commonwealth v. Meyers, 290 Pa. 573 , 139 A. 374 (1927). The effect of such remarks depends upon the atmosphere of the trial, Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 406 Pa. 102, 110 , 176 A.2d 421 (1962); Commonwealth v. Del Giorno, 303 Pa. 509, 519 , 154 A. 786 (1931), and the proper action to be taken is within the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Silvis, 445 Pa. 235, 237 , 284 A.2d 740 (1971); Commonwealth v. Simon, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.