Commonwealth v. Upsher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although a prosecutor’s language may be improper, a new trial is not required unless the “unavoidable effect would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, so that they could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict”. Commonwealth v. Hoss, 469 Pa. 195 , 364 A.2d 1335 (1976). The nature of the questions objected to by appellant's trial counsel were certainly not of the prejudicial nature which would destroy the jury’s ability to render a true verdict. Furthermore, since all objections were sustained, every attempt by trial counsel to prevent the prosecutor from pursuing an improper question was successful. Since appellant’s contention that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of appellant requires that a new trial be granted is without merit, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a mistrial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 Pa. Super. 560 - Commonwealth v. Garvin · 400 Pa. Super. 207 - Commonwealth v. Reed

2. “particular course chosen by counsel has some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his clients' interests. Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599 , 235 A.2d 349 (1967) (Emphasis in original)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Manigault · Commonwealth v. Lesko

3. “In Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50 , 354 A.2d 545 (1976), this Court held that “where evidence offered to support a verdict of guilt is so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, a jury may not be permitted to return such a finding.” However, this rule applies only in those cases where the testimony is so patently unreliable that a verdict of guilt would be based upon pure conjecture. Commonwealth v. Whack, 482 Pa. 137 , 393 A.2d 417 (1978). In Commonwealth v. Hudson, 489 Pa. 620 , 414 A.2d 1381 (1980), this Court held that contradictions by other witnesses and prior inconsistent statements affect the credibility of the witness and do not render his testimony patently unreliable under the Farquharson standard. Issues of credibility are properly left to the jury for determination. Commonwealth v. Hudson, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 318 Pa. Super. 55 - Commonwealth v. Todt