Commonwealth v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e cannot conclude that the factual predicates are so distinctly similar that one could naturally conclude that both crimes were perpetrated by the same individual. Although there exist[ ] general similarities, the elements of common scheme or design are lacking. It is true that both crimes occurred at approximately the same time of night and within a one and one-half block of the Appellant’s home. However, the victims’ ages varied drastically, in addition to the victims being of different races. Furthermore, the evidence was questionable as to whether [ ]. Steckle was sexually assaulted although [] Phillips was assaulted. It was also widely known.that [] Steckle lived alone while [ ] Phillips lived with her three-year-old son. Furthermore, while [.] Steckle was brutally and viciously injured in the face, head, body, arms and legs, [] Phillips was punched only in the head.. [ ] Steck-le was found lying on the ground floor, while [] Phillips was dragged to the second-floor bedroom. Finally, a television, radio, and ring were taken from [ ] Steckle’s home, while only thirty dollars in cash was taken from [,] Phillips even though a portable .television .and radio were in full sight of the burglar. While it is true that' every element of the crimes need not be identical to constitute a ‘signature crime’, the details relied upon must be sufficiently unique to suggest that the crimes were committed by the same person. Based upon the similarities and differences between these two ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 228 - Commonwealth v. Semenza