Commonwealth v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It was a situation likely to leave an indelible impression upon the viewers. The severity of the court’s responses would suggest to the uninitiated that counsel’s conduct represented a grave departure from the conduct expected of one in his position. There was a reasonable probability the incident may have distracted the jury from an objec tive appraisal of those legitimate issues presented on the question of guilt or innocence. Discord between the trial court and defense counsel is also likely to affect the client’s cause. The client’s position may be deemed less worthy in the eyes of the jury, by their translating the court’s displeasure as an indication of the’ lack of substance in the client’s cause. The fact that counsel is perceived by the jury as having engaged in some serious misbehavior may suggest to the jury that he was forced to resort to such behavior because of the hopelessness of his client’s case. The lack of respect for counsel, which may well have been engendered, would necessarily diminish his effectiveness as a persuasive advocate of his client’s positions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 308 Pa. Super. 370 - Commonwealth v. Nicholson

2. “BY THE COURT: Q. What was he talking to you about? A. He wasn’t talking about too much. Just about my case, that is all. About my case, like when I get on the stand for me to tell what I know about the case. What happened to me. That’s what I’m doing. Q. That’s what your [sic] doing now? A. Yes. Q. Did he tell you to say anything that you are not saying now? A. No. Q. Did he tell you to say anything that was not part of your case? MR. SAGEL: Judge, may I interrupt and— THE COURT: Never interrupt the court. Sit down. MR. SAGEL: I respectfully— THE COURT: Sit down. MR. SAGEL: I respectfully object, Sir. THE COURT: I said to you to sit down. MR. SAGEL: I must object— THE COURT: Sheriff, take him into custody. We’ll stand in recess, members of the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 308 Pa. Super. 370 - Commonwealth v. Nicholson

3. ““It must be determined from all the circumstances whether a remark has a prejudicial effect; there is no fixed rule applicable in every case. An accepted guide in determining prejudicial effect is that, if the remark may be said with fair assurance to have had but a slight effect upon the jury, if any at all, and one is not left in doubt that it had no substantial influence in the case, it will not vitiate the otherwise fair trial. Commonwealth v. Phillips, [ 183 Pa.Super. 377, 382 , 132 A.2d 733, 736 (1957)].” Commonwealth v. Davis, 497 Pa. 335, 342 , 440 A.2d 1185, 1188 (1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 300 Pa. Super. 224 - Commonwealth v. Reed