Commonwealth v. Gravely’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 270 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 276 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “only those issues included in post-verdict motions will be considered preserved for appellate review.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Manigault · 297 Pa. Super. 284 - Commonwealth v. Vitacolonna

2. “The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions. It bars retrials where “bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor,” United States v. Jorn, supra, [400 U.S.] at 485, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 , 91 S.Ct. 547 [at 557] threatens the “[h]arassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict” the defendant. Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. [734] at 736, 10 L.Ed.2d 100 , 83 S.Ct. 1033 [at 1034].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 342 Pa. Super. 281 - Commonwealth v. Simons

3. “[E]ven if it were assumed that the two verdicts were logically inconsistent, such inconsistency alone could not be grounds for a new trial or for reversal. "It has long been the rule in Pennsylvania and in the federal courts that consistency in a verdict in a criminal case in not necessary."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 374 Pa. Super. 549 - Commonwealth v. Trill