Commonwealth v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 78 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is beyond cavil that an accused in a criminal case is clothed with a presumption of innocence and that the burden of proof in establishing guilt rests with the Commonwealth. The quantum of proof necessary to satisfy this burden, which never shifts from the Commonwealth to the accused, is such that the fact-finder must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. 380 , 321 A.2d 880 (1974); Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa. 475 , 321 A.2d 627 (1974); Commonwealth v. Bonomo, 396 Pa. 222 , 151 A.2d 441 (1959). We have often stated that this identical burden extends to every material element of the crime charged and that if the Commonwealth fails to carry this burden beyond a reasonable doubt as to any one element, the accused must be acquitted. Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102, 111 , 317 A.2d 258, 262 (1974); Commonwealth v. Roscioli, 454 Pa. 59, 62 , 309 A.2d 396, 398 (1973); Commonwealth v. Conklin, 399 Pa. 512, 515 , 160 A.2d 566, 568 (1960). See also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). (Emphasis in original.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 356 Pa. Super. 477 - Commonwealth v. Groff · Commonwealth v. Kerchner

2. ““The defense had an absolute right to have the jury instructed not only as to the quantum of proof required to establish guilt but also that the requirement extended to each of the material elements of the offense. The function of elucidating the relevant legal principles belongs to the judge, and the failure to fulfill this function deprives the defendant of a fair trial. See Commonwealth v. Johnny Wortham (Commonwealth v. Dorothe Wortham), 471 Pa. 243 , 369 A.2d 1287 . It is entirely possible that, as a result of the charge as it was given, the jury concluded that the Commonwealth might meet its burden if the cumulative evidence of guilt was such that they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt although they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the offense. This is not the correct standard and differs significantly from the requirement that each and every element of the crime meet this same measure of substantiation.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 346 Pa. Super. 263 - Commonwealth v. Stockard · 297 Pa. Super. 236 - Commonwealth v. Shoats

3. “On prior occasions we have refused to ignore an incorrect, misleading, or incomplete charge on a matter as fundamental as the burden of proof in a criminal case, even where “the evidence of guilt piles as high as Mt. Everest on Matterhorn, even if the District Attorney conscientiously believes the defendant to be as guilty as Cain, and no matter with what certainty the Judge views the culpability of the accused at the bar----””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Lewis · 297 Pa. Super. 236 - Commonwealth v. Shoats