Commonwealth v. Peterkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

91 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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Mills concerned a Maryland statute which required jurors unanimously to agree on each individual mitigating circumstance after deciding aggravating factors. Absent unanimous agreement, the Maryland statute barred consideration of the mitigating evidence as to a given circumstance. The Supreme Court held that the statute violated the Eighth Amendment because a single Maryland juror could force a death verdict on the other jurors by refusing to agree that mitigation existed. The Pennsylvania statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711, does the opposite and, therefore, does not violate the rule in Mills . The Pennsylvania statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(l)(iv), requires that the jury unanimously agree that no mitigating circumstances exist and unanimously agree on a verdict for a sentence of death. Thus, while a single Pennsylvania juror can always prevent a death sentence, a single juror can never compel one, as could a single juror under the former Maryland statute. Jury instructions in the penalty phase which follow the language of the death penalty statute do not recreate the error in Mills .”

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

2. “even assuming Mills applies, Mills can not apply retroactively to appellant’s case because Mills was announced in 1988, six years after appellant’s trial and two years after this court’s final decision in appellant’s direct appeal. In Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 512 Pa. 349, 355 , 516 A.2d 1180, 1183 (1986), this court held that a new rule of law will not be applied retroactively “to any case on collateral review unless that decision was handed down during the pendency of appellant’s direct appeal and the issue was properly preserved there or ... was nonwaivable.””

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

3. “the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue....”

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