416 Pa. Super. 329 - Commonwealth v. Scarfo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If we conclude that the subsequent prosecution is not based on the same conduct as the federal prosecution, then our analysis is concluded since the statute makes clear that in such situation subsequent prosecution by the Commonwealth is not barred. If, however, we conclude the subsequent prosecution by the Commonwealth "is based on the same conduct" for which appellant was prosecuted by the federal government, the prosecution can proceed only if both of the following conditions exist: (1) each of the prosecutions requires proof of a fact not required of the other; and (2) the statute upon which the Commonwealth prosecution is based is intended to prevent substantially different harm than is the federal statute . . . It would seem that an affirmative answer to the initial inquiry lowers the bar to the subsequent prosecution and that only an affirmative response to both of the remaining inquiries can lift the bar.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 445 Pa. Super. 147 - Commonwealth v. Breeland · 450 Pa. Super. 227 - Commonwealth v. Calloway

2. “Every unwise or irrelevant remark made in the course of a trial by a judge, a witness, or counsel does not compel the granting of a new trial. Rather, the focus is on what, if any, effects the comments had on the jury. A new trial is required when the effect of the District Attorney comments “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 objectively and render a true verdict.” Further, this decision is for the trial court to make. Our role is to determine solely whether the trial court abused its discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 91 - Commonwealth v. Miller · 422 Pa. Super. 224 - Commonwealth v. Fox

3. “[T]here sometimes exist special circumstances which operate as exceptions to the general rule and bring the case within the equally well established principle that evidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to prove (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme, plan or design embracing commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others; or (5) to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial— in other words, where there is such a logical connection between the crimes that proof of one will naturally tend to show that the accused is the person who committed the other, (citation omitted). When the evidence is relevant and important to one of these five issues, it is generally conceded that the prejudicial effect may be outweighed by the probative value, (footnote omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 426 Pa. Super. 167 - Commonwealth v. Swinson