Commonwealth v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

115 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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he prejudice to the defendant resulting from reference to his silence is substantial. While it is efficacious for the Commonwealth to attempt to uncover a fabricated version of events, in light of the “insolubly ambiguous” nature of silence on the part of the accused, we do not think it sufficiently probative of an inconsistency with his in-court testimony to warrant allowance of any reference at trial to the silence. Accordingly, the Commonwealth must seek to impeach a defendant’s relation of events by reference only to inconsistencies as they factually exist, not to the purported inconsistency between silence at arrest and testimony at trial. Silence at the time of arrest may become a factual inconsistency in the face of an assertion by the accused while testifying at trial that he related this version to the police at the time of arrest when in fact he remained silent. Absent such an assertion, the reference by the prosecutor to previous silence is impermissible and reversible error.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 386 Pa. Super. 105 - Commonwealth v. Freeman · Commonwealth v. Robinson

2. ““We would be naive if we failed to recognize that most laymen view an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege as a badge of guilt.” Walker v. United States [ 404 F.2d 900 (5th Cir.1968) ], ... It is clear that “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury.” Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of N.Y. [ 350 U.S. 551 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956) ]. Commonwealth v. Haideman, 449 Pa. 367, 371 , 296 A.2d 765, 767 (1972). The prejudice to the defendant resulting from reference to his silence is substantial. While it is efficacious for the Commonwealth to attempt to uncover a fabricated version of events, in light of the “insolubly ambiguous” nature of silence on the part of the accused, [Doyle, 426 U.S. at 617 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 ], we do not think it sufficiently probative of an inconsistency with his in-court testimony to warrant allowance of any reference at trial to the silence. Article 1, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that the accused “cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself ...,” a right which is parallel to the federal constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. We do not think that the accused should be protected only where there is governmental inducement of the exercise of the right. We acknowledge that this position is more restrictive than that taken by the United States Supreme Court”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Molina · Com. v. Molina

3. “`reasonable possibility' that the error did contribute to the verdict negates any notion of harmlessness.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. DiPietro · 317 Pa. Super. 320 - Commonwealth v. Claypool