Commonwealth v. Morin’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably State v. Marino (1983), Ciummei v. Commonwealth (1979)
85 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
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Mapp v. Ohio · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Commonwealth v. Hubbard · Commonwealth v. Twiggs
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all cases the defendant may waive a jury trial with the consent of his attorney, if any, and approval by a judge of the court in which the case is pending, and elect to be tried by a judge without a jury. The judge shall ascertain from the defendant whether this is a knowing and intelligent waiver, and such colloquy shall appear on the record.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Q. Mr. Fortune, how old are you? A. 43. Q. And do you read and write and understand the English language? A. Fairly well. Q. Do you understand the nature of the charges against you today? A. Some. Q. You understand you are charged with rape, forcible rape of the young girl? Do you understand that? A. Yes. Q. You understand that you have a right to a trial by jury on those charges? A. Yes. Q. And that you would help with your attorney as well as the District Attorney select 12 people that would sit as that jury and all 12 of those people must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty, before you could be found guilty. Do you understand that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you understand if one person of that 12 did not feel you were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you could not be found guilty by that jury? Do you understand that? A. Yes, sir. Q. You also have a right to waive a trial by jury and have his Honor hear the case without a jury and his Honor must be satisfied that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How is it you wish to be tried, with a Judge with the jury, or with the Judge without a jury? A. Without a jury. Q. By the Judge without a jury? A. Yes. Q. Has anybody threatened you or forced you or promised you anything to get you to give up your right to a jury trial? A. No, sir. Q. Are you under the influence of any alcohol or narcotic drug at this time? A. No, sir. (Record, pages 3-4).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The appellant argues that we should make a per se prophylactic rule reversing convictions for failure to comply with Rule 1101 despite the fact that a subsequent full and fair hearing proved the waiver of the constitutional right was knowing and intelligent. When we make rules for criminal proceedings, we do so in order to protect the rights of the individual and therefore we expect strict compliance with those rules. However, a prophylactic exclusionary rule is applied only in entreme cases where all other attempts to secure compliance have proven unsuccessful. See generally Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 651-652 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 [1689-1690], 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). In this area there has been no showing of widespread flagrant disregard to justify formulation of such a rule at this time. Furthermore, where there is a subsequent proceeding in which the waiver is proven to be knowing and intelligent on the record such a prophylactic rule seems unnecessary since the purpose of the rule to insure the constitutionality of the waiver and our ability to review it, are satisfied. See Commonwealth v. Godfrey, 434 Pa. 532, 538 , 254 A.2d 923 (1969). (Roberts, J., concurring). Id., 454 Pa. at 372-373 , 312 A.2d 599 -600.”
1 later decision 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.