Commonwealth v. Pounds’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 159 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Burkett v. Cunningham (1987), Commonwealth v. Johnson (2009)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 159 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 · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · United States v. Ewell · Pollard v. United States · Dickey v. Florida
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Commonwealth has the burden of proving every essential element necessary for conviction. If the defendant traverses one of those essential elements by evidence of alibi, his evidence will be considered by the jury along with all the other evidence. It may, either standing alone or together with other evidence, be sufficient to leave in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt which, without it, might not otherwise exist. It will be the duty of the trial judge to carefully instruct the jury as to the relationship of the evidence of the prosecution and the evidence of the defendant as each bears upon the essential elements of the crime charged. This must be done without unfair disparagement although the trial judge must be left free to comment upon the evidence, as he has done heretofore, so long as he leaves the jury free to find its own true verdict.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defense that places the defendant at the relevant time in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In that context, whether a delay in sentencing amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of a speedy trial right depends upon the circumstances. Pollard v. U.S., [ 352 U.S. 354 , 77 S.Ct. 481 , 1 L.Ed.2d 393 [1957]]; accord, United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 , 86 S.Ct. 773, 776 , 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966). See also Commonwealth ex rel. Holly v. Ashe, [ 368 Pa. 211 , 82 A.2d 244 (1951)]. Such delay must not be purposeful or oppressive. Pollard v. U.S., supra; accord, United States v. Ewell, supra. The principal factors to be considered in determining whether a delay in sentencing has deprived a defendant of his right to a speedy trial are length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of the right, and resulting prejudice to interests protected by the right to a speedy trial. Accord, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); Commonwealth v. Jones, 450 Pa. 442 , 299 A.2d 288 (1973); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 449 Pa. 297 , 297 A.2d 127 (1972).”
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.