453 Pa. Super. 42 - Commonwealth v. Romine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Finally, as the Commonwealth points out, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel cannot be invoked anticipatorily outside of the context of custodial interrogation: [The U.S. Supreme Court has] in fact never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than “custodial interrogation”.... If the Miranda right to counsel can be invoked at a preliminary hearing, it could be argued, there is no logical reason why it could not be invoked by a letter prior to arrest, or indeed even prior to identification as a suspect. Most rights must be asserted when the government seeks to take the action they protect against. The fact that we have allowed the Miranda right to counsel, once asserted, to be effective with respect to future custodial interrogation does not necessarily mean that we will allow it to be asserted initially outside the context of custodial interrogation, with similar future effect. McNeil, 501 U.S. at 182 n. 3, 111 S.Ct. at 2211 n. 3.”

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

2. “... “we must consider only the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses and so much of the evidence of the prosecution as read in the context of the record as a whole remains uneontradicted.” Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299, 302 , 608 A.2d 1030, 1031 (1992). In reviewing the ruling of a suppression court, [w]e must determine whether the factual findings are supported by the record and, assuming there is support in the record, we are bound by the facts and may reverse if the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are in error. Commonwealth v. Cortez, 507 Pa. 529 , 491 A.2d 111 (1985), cert. denied,, 474 U.S. 950 , 106 S.Ct. 349 , 88 L.Ed.2d 297 (1985) Commonwealth v. Shiflet, 431 Pa.Super. 444, 447 , 636 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1994).”

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

3. “The initiation of judicial criminal proceedings is far irom a mere formalism. It is the starting point of our whole system of adversary criminal justice. For it is only then that the government has committed itself to prosecute, and only then that the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified. It is then that a defendant finds himself faced with the prosecutorial forces of organized society, and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law. It is this point, therefore, that marks the commencement of the ‘criminal prosecutions’ to which alone the explicit guarantees of the Sixth Amendment are applicable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 56 - Commonwealth v. Hill