Commonwealth v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““.. . counsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective once we are able to conclude that the particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests. The test is not whether other alternatives were more reasonable, employing a hindsight evaluation of the record.” Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 605 , 235 A.2d 349, 352-53 (1967). (Emphasis in original).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Arthur · Commonwealth v. Treftz

2. “In his amended PCHA petition, appellant made a general allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing “to raise and preserve on appeal issues of inflammatory summation and other prosecution misconduct.” At the hearing, appellant’s counsel made no specific argument on this claim. When counsel filed a brief in support of the PCHA petition eleven days after the hearing, specific instances of alleged inflammatory summation were alluded to for the first time. Under these circumstances, we believe appellant has waived this claim. In Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, supra, 427 Pa. [599] at 608, 235 A.2d [349] at 354, we stated: “As with other assertions of a denial of constitutional rights in post conviction proceedings, the burden remains throughout with the prisoner to demonstrate any constitutional deprivation.” Once a prisoner has made such a showing, the Commonwealth can, of course, call witnesses to rebut his allegations. More specifically, in this case, once appellant would have shown instances where it seemed that trial counsel should have objected, the Commonwealth could then have called trial counsel to the stand to explain his failure to object, thus showing either his effectiveness or lack of effectiveness. Because of appellant’s failure to allude to specific instances of inflammatory summation before the PCHA hearing, the Commonwealth never had the opportunity to call trial counsel to explain his actions. For reasons similar to this, Commonwealth v”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 318 Pa. Super. 538 - Commonwealth v. Young

3. “". . . Appellant raises numerous other issues concerning effectiveness of trial counsel. These points were not raised in the counseled amended Post Conviction Hearing Act petition. Appellant raised these specific issues for the first time in his brief which was submitted after the post conviction hearing. We believe these claims are waived, because appellant, by waiting until after the hearing, denied the Commonwealth an opportunity to defend against assertions raised at such a late date. We thus refuse to consider anything not raised in a counseled petition. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 1506(4)."”

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