409 Pa. Super. 266 - Commonwealth v. Mickens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Before the Commonwealth will be forced to reveal an informant's identity, there must be some showing that revelation is necessary. For example, the informant's identity may be necessary to the defense where the evidence against the defendant proceeds solely from the testimony of police officers, and the only relatively neutral eyewitness to the crime is the informant. See Commonwealth v. Carter, 427 Pa. 53 , 233 A.2d 284 (1967). Other situations where the informant's identity would be helpful are where the defendant alleges entrapment or where there is an identification issue. See Commonwealth v. Williams, [ 236 Pa.Super. 184 , 345 A.2d 267 (1975)].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 438 Pa. Super. 131 - Commonwealth v. Washington · 438 Pa. Super. 131 - Com. v. Washington

2. “There is no fixed rule with respect to [the] disclosure of an informant. The problem is one that calls for [a] balancing [of] the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his [or her] defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony and other relevant factors. Before disclosure of an informant’s identity will be required, more is necessary than a mere assertion by the defendant that such disclosure might be helpful in establishing a particular defense. Although the defendant plainly cannot be expected to show that such information will actually be helpful to his defense, the record should at least suggest a reasonable possibility that the information might be helpful, so that it would be unfair to withhold it____ [Also,] there must be some showing that revelation is necessary. For example, the informant’s identity may be necessary to the defense where the evidence against the defendant proceeds solely from the testimony of police officers, and the only relatively neutral eyewitness to the crime is the informant. Other situations where the informant’s identity would be helpful are where the defendant alleges entrapment or where there is an identification issue. Conversely, when. an informant has not been an eyewitness to and has ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 413 Pa. Super. 235 - Commonwealth v. Eicher

3. “A lawyer has a duty to “keep the accused fully informed of all options throughout the proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Saxton, 516 Pa. 196, 200 , 532 A.2d 352, 354 (1987). Additionally, the failure by counsel “to investigate potentially meritorious defenses, and/or to interview witnesses whose testimony could prove beneficial and exculpatory to the defendant’s case, can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if no reasonable basis otherwise exists for counsel’s failure.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 501 Pa. 275, 287, 461 A.2d 208, 214 (1983). Therefore, a lawyer who fails to use character evidence on a defendant’s behalf can indeed be deemed constitutionally ineffective if there is no reasonable basis for such failure. See, e.g.: Commonwealth v. Simler, 320 Pa.Super. 342 , 467 A.2d 355 (1983); Commonwealth v. Luther, 317 Pa.Super. 41 , 463 A.2d 1073 (1983). However, “[a] decision by counsel not to take a particular action does not constitute ineffective assistance if that decision was reasonably based, and was not the result of sloth or ignorance of available alternatives.” Commonwealth v. Collins, 519 Pa. 58, 65 , 545 A.2d 882, 886 (1988). “The decision not to present a particular defense is a tactical one and will not be deemed ineffective stewardship if there is a reasonable basis for that position.” Commonwealth v. Blair, 491 Pa. 499, 506 , 421 A.2d 656, 660 (1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 431 Pa. Super. 475 - Commonwealth v. Jones