Commonwealth v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Commonwealth v. Buehl (1986), Commonwealth v. Peterkin (1986)
129 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Witherspoon v. Illinois · Mincey v. Arizona · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri · Pulley v. Harris
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 1100 Prompt Trial ... (a)(2). Trial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed against the defendant after June 30, 1974 shall commence no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date on which the complaint is filed____ ****** (f) At any time before trial, the defendant or his counsel may apply to the court for an order dismissing the charges with prejudice on the ground that this rule has been violated. A copy of such motion shall be served upon the attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall also have the right to be heard thereon. Any order granting such motion shall dismiss the charges with prejudice and discharge the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“This Court has recently defined the standard for ordering a new trial in a case where a prosecutorial statement is deemed improper. Commonwealth v. Upsher, 497 Pa. 621 , 444 A.2d 90 (1982). There we concluded that, although a prosecutor’s statement may be inappropriate, a new trial will not be granted unless it is inevitable that the prosecutor’s remark prejudiced the defendant to such a degree that it prevents the jury from weighing the evidence and rendering a true verdict. Id., 497 Pa. at 627 , 444 A.2d at 92 . See also Commonwealth v. Scarpino, 494 Pa. 421 , 431 A.2d 926 (1981) (New trial warranted when unavoidable effect of prosecutorial comment is to deprive defendant of fair trial); Commonwealth v. Martin, 461 Pa. 289 , 336 A.2d 290 (1975); Commonwealth v. Goosby, 450 Pa. 609 , 301 A.2d 673 (1973). Furthermore, “[T]he prejudicial effect of the district attorney’s remarks must be evaluated in the context in which they occurred.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 490 Pa. 380 , 416 A.2d 986 (1980); Commonwealth v. Perkins, 473 Pa. 116 , 373 A.2d 1076 (1977). However, a reversal is not an automatic formality for every intemperate or improper comment by the prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . . studies now demonstrate convincingly that persons favoring the death penalty are significantly more likely to vote for conviction in capital cases and that persons excluded from jury service on the basis of their unwillingness to impose the death penalty represent a distinct and sizeable group of the community.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.