Commonwealth v. Byrd’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Commonwealth v. LaCava (1995), Commonwealth v. Jones (1992)
2 federal appellate · 103 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Hamling v. United States · Roth v. United States · Rodriguez v. New York · Offutt v. United States · Barrett v. United States
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Admittedly, some authority, including certain decisions of our own Superior Court, does assert that the acquittal of all but one conspirator requires the discharge of the remaining defendant. E.g., Commonwealth v. Campbell, 57 Pa.Super. 160 , 390 A.2d 761 (1978); Commonwealth v. Aurach, 110 Pa.Super. 438 , 168 A. 531 (1933); see note 6, infra. This rule, however, had its origins at a time when co-conspirators were jointly tried. In that circumstance a single jury would hear the evidence of conspiracy and, rightly, would not be permitted to find the evidence sufficient to prove a conspiracy involving only one of those charged. The acquittal rule that developed was thus clearly a rule of verdict consistency, [citations omitted] It is evident that Aurach, supra, the leading case in our Superior Court, is premised on just such a foundation. In the case of seperate [sic] trials, however, this consistency rule loses much if not all of its force. An acquittal at any trial is never a guarantee that no crime has been committed. Rather, it signifies only that the Commonwealth has not proved its case to the satisfaction of the jury. Thus in the present case, different verdicts may well have been due solely to the different composition of the two juries. Alternatively, the difference may have been due to a variety of other circumstances, including a difference in the proof offered at trial. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently explained, “acquittal [of one of the conspirato”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Definition of conspiracy. — A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“6. The issue in Brown was presented as one of collateral estoppel and our decision was to the effect that such a principle did not preclude subsequent prosecution of an alleged accomplice after acquittal of other co-defendants. The present appellant was tried and convicted before his co-conspirator’s acquittal and thus no claim of estoppel is asserted here. Yet this in no way suggests that Brown is inapposite. Rather the permissibility of trying a defendant after a co-defendant has already been acquitted on similar charges presents, if anything, a more difficult question. We note that although alleged principal Smith was acquitted of all charges at his subsequent trial, appellant does not challenge his own convictions of robbery or murder on this basis. We have not ignored our per curiam affirmance of the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Campbell, 257 Pa.Super. 160 , 390 A.2d 761 (1978), aff’d, 484 Pa. 387 , 399 A.2d 130 (1979), which refused to uphold the conviction of one conspirator where his only alleged co-conspirator had been previously acquitted. Although today’s decision casts doubt on Campbell, we need not and hence do not now accept the Commonwealth’s invitation to reconsider that decision.”
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.