Commonwealth v. Stonehouse’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 58 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[B]ecause of the unique psychological condition of the battered woman and because of the myths commonly held about battered women, it is clear that where a pattern of battering has been shown, the battered woman syndrome must be presented to the jury through the introduction of relevant evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 430 Pa. Super. 297 - Commonwealth v. Miller · Cathryn Ann Linn v. State of Iowa

2. “Now, the Defendant has submitted to you that he was justified in this killing based upon the theory of self-defense. In considering whether the Defendant’s use of force is justified, you should consider the principle that he was entitled to estimate the necessity for use of force in self-defense under the circumstances as he reasonably believed them to be when the force was used. Under the evidence in this case, justification is a defense if the Defendant reasonably believed that the force he used was necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury on the same occasion as the Defendant used force. Because the Commonwealth has the burden of disproving the defense of justification, you may find the Defendant guilty only if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not reasonably believe that the force he used against Lamont Nelson was immediately necessary to protect himself then and there against death or serious bodily injury that was or would have been inflicted upon him by Lamont Nelson. You may find the Defendant guilty if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew that he could avoid the necessity of using deadly force and complete safety by retreating from the scene. Now, in determining whether the Defendant was justified in this killing, you may consider certain evidence in the case. This evidence and I’m speaking now with the prior convictions of Lamont Nelson for crimes involving violence may be con”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 29 - Commonwealth v. Martin

3. “Had trial counsel introduced expert testimony about the battered woman syndrome, the actions taken by appellant ... would have been weighed by the jury in light of how the reasonably prudent battered woman would have perceived and reacted to [her batterer's] behavior. Trial counsel proceeded to trial on the theory that appellant had experienced psychological and physical abuse inflicted upon her by the victim and that at the time she shot [her batterer] she was acting in self-defense. There was no reasonable basis for trial counsel not to call an expert witness to counter the erroneous battered woman myths upon which the Commonwealth built its case. Thus, trial counsel was ineffective, and the absence of such expert testimony was prejudicial to appellant in that the jury was permitted, on the basis of unfounded myths, to assess appellant's claim that she had a reasonable belief that she faced a life-threatening situation when she fired her gun at [her batterer].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cathryn Ann Linn v. State of Iowa