Commonwealth v. Dzvonick’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2017
21 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 Bottone v. United States · Union Transfer Co. v. United States · Commonwealth v. Micuso · Commonwealth v. Martin · Commonwealth v. Minoff
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.
“[ajfter the verdict has been recorded and the jury discharged, only in extremely exceptional cases may the verdict be molded and even then only unless to make the corrected verdict conform to the obvious intention of the jury, i.e., to conform to a verdict actually rendered, but informally or improperly stated in writing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The situations in which molding is permissible are severely circumscribed. They fall into two principal categories-molding prior to recording the verdict and discharge of the jury, and molding after such recording and discharge. Prior to recording the verdict there are two accepted methods of verdict molding. See Laub, Pennsylvania Trial Guide, sec. 244, at 416 (1959). If the jury's error is defective inform only, as here where the date was omitted, then the judge may correct it in open court with the acquiescence of the jury. (Citas omitidas). However, if the error is substantive, the court must send the jury back with additional instructions for further deliberation. (Citas omitidas). After verdict has been recorded and jury discharged, only in "extremely exceptional cases" may the verdict be molded and even then "only unless to make the corrected verdict conform to the obvious intention of the jury, i.e., to conform to a verdict actually rendered, but informally or improperly stated in writing. Laub, supra, at 415." (Enfasis nuestro).”
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.