Commonwealth v. Eck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have often enunciated the principle that an adequate on the record colloquy under Rule 319(a) must include a demonstration ‘that the defendant understands the nature of the charges. . . Commonwealth v. Campbell, 451 Pa. 465, 467 , 304 A.2d 121, 122 (1973); Commonwealth v. Maddox, 450 Pa. 406, 408 , 300 A.2d 503, 504 (1973); see also Commonwealth v. Belgrave, 445 Pa. 311, 317 , 285 A.2d 448, 450 (1971). In order to demonstrate that a defendant possesses such understanding, he certainly must be told more than just that he has been charged with murder or robbery, for example. While such terms clearly connote some meaning to the layman, this meaning does not always embrace the basic legal elements of the crime. If this were not the case, there would be no need for instructions to a jury on such points, for certainly, an average defendant cannot be presumed to understand more than an average juror. Thus, for an examination to demonstrate a defendant’s understanding of the charge, the record must disclose that the elements of the crime or crimes charged were outlined in understandable terms. Our decisions in Commonwealth v. Campbell, supra and Commonwealth v. Jackson, 450 Pa. 417 , 299 A.2d 209 (1973), both of which dealt with extensive colloquies on this point, imply that such examination is mandatory. We now expressly hold that there is such a requirement.” (emphasis in original)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 273 Pa. Super. 393 - Commonwealth v. Copper