Commonwealth v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Commonwealth argues the issues involving the admissibility of Jones’ statements , are waived because they were not set forth in post-verdict motions, citing Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31 , 331 A.2d 213 (1975). However, the issues were set forth in a brief presented to the post-verdict motion court and are therefore preserved for review. Commonwealth v. Pugh, 476 Pa. 445 , 383 A.2d 183 (1978) (plurality opinion, Eagen, C. J., joined by O’Brien and Manderino, JJ.; dissenting opinion, Pomeroy, J.). See Commonwealth v. Perillo, 474 Pa. 63 , 376 A.2d 635 (1977); Commonwealh v. Grace, 473 Pa. 542 , 375 A.2d 721 (1977). Furthermore, we decline to draw a distinction between a brief filed with the clerk of the court and those presented to the court without filing on the basis that the former becomes part of the record and the latter does not. The distinction would place form over substance, particularly when briefs filed in the intermediate appellate courts of this Commonwealth have not to date been made part of the record when certified to this Court on appeal. The post-verdict motion court performs an appellate function and briefs presented to that court should be considered when made available to us to resolve waiver questions even though they are not “technically” part of the record. The situation presents us with circumstances which are no different than when we consider briefs presented to the intermediate appellate courts which are not made part of the record.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 258 Pa. Super. 471 - Commonwealth v. Roberson · Commonwealth v. Sanchez

2. “"In order to find that the issues in this case are not waived, the majority ignores not only the clear definition of the record on appeal promulgated by this Court in Rule of Appellate Procedure 1921, but also the principle, settled for centuries, that an appellate court may not consider matters outside the record on appeal. . . . Until this Court resolves to apply its procedural rules firmly and consistently, we will continue to have rampant confusion in an area where it is of paramount importance to obtain clarity and certainty." 478 Pa. at 181 , 386 A.2d at 499-500 (footnote and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 258 Pa. Super. 471 - Commonwealth v. Roberson

3. “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that: probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances which are within the knowledge of the officer at the time of arrest, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 297 Pa. Super. 444 - Commonwealth v. Bowermaster