Commonwealth v. Brazil’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he procedure to be followed when a defendant seeks to waive his right to counsel is provided in Pa.R.Crim.P. 318(c)_ Therefore, a trial judge must thoroughly inquire on the record into an accused’s appreciation of the right to effective assistance of counsel and to represent oneself at trial, at guilty plea hearings, at sentencing, and at every critical stage of a criminal proceeding. It is the Commonwealth’s position that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and elected to proceed pro se. The Commonwealth alleges Appellant applied to the public defender’s office for legal representation and was found ineligible for assistance due to his financial status. Appellant then chose not to hire private counsel but instead appeared pro se.... Examination of the record discloses that the trial judge failed to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to determine whether Appellant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to counsel. The record also establishes that during the exchanges between the trial court and Appellant which took place at trial, Appellant stated that the public defender’s office and county bar association had advised him that they did not have the time or energy to spend on silly cases like his. In addition, Appellant told the trial eourt that he did not have money to pay a lawyer. Based on this record, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing Appellant to proceed with trial under”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 4 - Commonwealth v. Payson

2. “It is recommended, however, that at a minimum, the judge or issuing authority ask questions to elicit the following information: (1) That the defendant understands that he or she has the right to be represented by counsel, and the right to have free counsel appointed if the defendant is indigent. (2) That the defendant understands the nature of the charges against the defendant and the elements of each of those charges. (3) That the defendant is aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged. (4) That the defendant understands that if he or she waives the right to counsel, the defendant will still be bound by all the normal rules of procedure and that counsel would be familiar with these rules. (5) That the defendant understands that there are possible defenses to these charges which counsel might be aware of, and if these defenses are not raised at trial, they may be lost permanently. (6) That the defendant understands that, in addition to defenses, the defendant has many rights that, if not timely asserted, may be lost permanently; and that if errors occur and are not timely objected to, or otherwise timely raised by the defendant, these errors may be lost permanently.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Davido

3. “the defendant is aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Pou