Commonwealth v. Tolassi’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. Chester (1991), Commonwealth v. DeHart (1986)
91 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 Barker v. Wingo · Roviaro v. United States · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Commonwealth v. Blair
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The decision whether to sever cases against co-defendants is one within the sound discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412 , 106 A.2d 820 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 688 (1954); Pa.R.Crim.P. 219. Such a decision will be reviewed only where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Lasch, 464 Pa. 573 , 347 A.2d 690 (1975) (opinion in support of affirmance); Commonwealth v. Patrick, 416 Pa. 437 , 206 A.2d 295 , (1965) appeal after remand 424 Pa. 380 , 227 A.2d 849 (1967). And the critical factor in one analysis is the prejudice which inures to the accused as a result of the trial court’s determination. Commonwealth v. Peterson, 453 Pa. 187, 194 , 307 A.2d 264, 267 (1973); Commonwealth v. Lasch, supra, 464 Pa. at 584-85 , 347 A.2d at 690 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Tjhe disposition of a motion to sequester the jury is within the discretion of the trial court. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1111(a). And the decision of the court will not be reversed unless the court “abused its discretion or committed an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 52 , 337 A.2d 873, 877 (1975). However, there are, of course, certain circumstances where adverse publicity attendant to the trial is so pervasive, intense and prejudicial that the law will presume the jury’s deliberations were affected by it. Commonwealth v. Bruno, 466 Pa. 245 , 352 A.2d 40 (1976). In highly publicized or sensational cases a number of alternatives are available to the court to preserve the integrity of the factfinding process. In most cases, however, admonitions to the jury such as those which appear in the ABA Projection Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press § 3.5(e) (Tentative Draft, 1966) will suffice. And in such cases appellate courts will presume the efficacy of cautionary instructions unless actual prejudice is demonstrated. Stoltzfus, supra, 462 Pa. at 55, 337 A.2d 873 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.