Commonwealth v. Bolden’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
317 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 323 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Gravely (1979), Commonwealth v. Hude (1983)
317 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · North Carolina v. Pearce · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States
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 323 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [to] protect an individual from being subjected to the hazard of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense____ The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the state with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continu ing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The basic purpose of the double jeopardy clause mandates that a defendant who has a meritorious claim have an effective procedural means of vindicating his constitutional right to be spared an unnecessary trial. Acquittal upon retrial or belated appellate recognition of a defendant’s claim by reversal of a conviction can never adequately protect the defendant’s rights. The defendant is deprived of his constitutional right the moment jeopardy attaches a second time. His loss is irreparable; to subject an individual to the expense, trauma and rigors incident to a criminal prosecution a second time offends the double jeopardy clause. The clause establishes the ‘right to be free from a second prosecution, not merely a second punishment for the same offense.’ Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 224 (5th Cir. 1973). “Without immediate appellate review, a defendant will be forced to undergo a new trial, precluding any review of his claim that he should not be tried at all. ‘Because of the nature of the constitutional right asserted], no post-conviction relief, either state or federal, is capable of vindicating [appellant’s] interest.’ United States ex rel. Webb v. Court of Common Pleas, 516 F.2d 1034, 1037 (3d Cir. 1975). As Judge Adams observed in Webb, ‘forcing [appellant] to trial would defeat the constitutional right he seeks to preserve.’ Id. at 1039 . Exceptional circumstances exist under Pennsylvania law warranting appellate review prior to judgment of sentence.” (Footnotes omitted.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]f a mistrial is ordered on defendant’s motion due to intentional or grossly negligent misconduct on the part of the prosecutor or judge, reprosecution is barred by the double jeopardy clause. Id., 472 Pa. at 642 , 373 A.2d at 109 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.