Commonwealth v. Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

197 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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Before sentence, the court in its discretion may allow the defendant to withdraw his plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant ’s pleas. ” ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 347 Pa. Super. 171 - Commonwealth v. Khorey · 314 Pa. Super. 244 - Commonwealth v. Dorian

2. “[W]hile most pleas of guilty consist of both a waiver of trial and an express admission of guilt, the latter element is not a constitutional requisite to the imposition of criminal penalty. An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime. . Nor can we perceive any material difference between a plea that refuses to admit commission of the criminal act and a plea containing a protestation of innocence when, as in the instant case, a defendant intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Gunter · 429 Pa. Super. 213 - Commonwealth v. Fluharty

3. ““The desire of an accused to benefit from a plea bargain which he requests his counsel to arrange has been viewed as a ‘strong indicator’ of the voluntariness of the plea. Commonwealth v. Lee, 460 Pa. 324, 328 , 333 A.2d 749, 750 (1975). See also Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 442 Pa. 516 , 276 A.2d 526 (1971). Just as a defendant may decide, as a matter of strategy or expedience, to ‘voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime,’ North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S.Ct. 160, 167 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 171 (1970), accord Commonwealth v. Jackson, 450 Pa. 417 , 299 A.2d 209 (1973); Commonwealth v. Sampson, 445 Pa. 558 , 285 A.2d 480 (1971); Commonwealth v. Cottrell, 433 Pa. 177 , 249 A.2d 294 (1969), so also may a defendant, as a matter of expedience, decide to accept a plea bargain offer solely to reap some benefit from the sentence recommendation reiterated to the judge at the time of the entry of the plea. It is obvious that appellant’s primary concern was length of sentence. Hence, we have great difficulty envisioning a scenario where the appellant, having benefit of an explanation of the elements of the crimes pursuant to [Commonwealth v.] Ingram [ 455 Pa. 198 , 316 A.2d 77 (1974) ], would halt the guilty plea colloquy with an assertion that these were not the crimes to which he intended to plead guilt. We do not intend to blithely”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Schultz · Commonwealth v. Middleton