Commonwealth v. Jamison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . This Court adopted the rule in McCutchen based on the conclusion that a juvenile could not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights unless he had an opportunity to consult with an attorney, parent or other interested and informed adult before he made a decision to forego his constitutional rights. Appellant raised the very issue which led to our rule in McCutchen . "This Court has held that McCutchen is applicable to all cases pending on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Chaney, 465 Pa. 407 , 350 A.2d 829 (1975). In Commonwealth v. Lee, 470 Pa. 401 , 368 A.2d 690 (1977), the Commonwealth urged this Court to overrule Chaney . This Court declined to do so and reiterated our prior holding that `any person whose case is on direct appeal is entitled to the benefit of the McCutchen decision.' Id. at 404, 368 A.2d at 692 (plurality opinion). See generally Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 245, 246 , 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2346, 2347 , 53 L.Ed.2d 306 [filed June 17, 1977] (Marshall, J., concurring) (Powell, J., concurring). Under Chaney and Lee , an appellant tried before McCutchen may be entitled to the benefit of McCutchen even if he did not raise such a claim in a motion to suppress and in post-trial motions. See generally Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 429 Pa. 89 , 239 A.2d 793 (1968). (Waiver will not be found where a defendant fails to raise a claim subsequently recognized by the courts, where the defendant neither knew nor could reasonably have been expected to know ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Baylis