Commonwealth v. Virtu’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rather than evidencing innocent error or good faith, however, the prosecutor’s actions in the proceedings below appear to have been directed precisely to avoid resolution of the Fifth Amendment questions outside of the presence of the jury. The only plausible explanation for his behavior, is that the difficulty of eliciting crucial testimony, in consequence of the witness’ anticipated assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination, led [the prosecution] to attempt a maneuver designed to prejudice appellant by forcing the witness to assert the privilege in the presence of the jury. The record here conclusively displays an extraordinary course of prosecutorial overreaching, including direct misrepresentation to the court, taken in deliberate bad faith. This kind of intentional prosecutorial misconduct is a threat to the very integrity of our judicial process, and must not be condoned. Commonwealth v. Starks, supra, n. 7 . We are reluctant to mandate dismissal of charges against this or any other defendant in the absence of a completed fact finding procedure. But extraordinary prosecutorial misconduct necessitates commensurately strong sanction. If protection against double jeopardy is to have any meaning at all, it must be invoked when an initial trial has been aborted as a result of a bad faith strategy pursued by the prosecution in a deliberate effort to prejudice the accused in the presence of the jury. Thus, the Commonwealth is now precluded by constitutional restrai”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 294 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Anderson · 296 Pa. Super. 235 - Commonwealth v. Custor

2. “A prosecutor should not call a witness who he knows will claim a privilege not to testify, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege. In some instances, as defined in the Code of Professional Responsibility, doing so will constitute unprofessional conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 320 Pa. Super. 425 - Commonwealth v. Musolino

3. “denied any intention to cause a mistrial or to seek unfair advantage by causing the witness to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury. He claimed that his intended questions at trial went no farther than those asked and answered at the suppression hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 294 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Anderson