Commonwealth v. Derk’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
May 2017
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers · McKnight v. Commonwealth · Kremer v. Grant
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that whether to request additional points for charge is one of the tactical decisions “within the exclusive province of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 450 Pa. 273 , 299 A.2d 608, 610 (1973), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 923 , 93 S.Ct. 2745 , 37 L.Ed.2d 150 (1973). We should not invade that province and declare counsel ineffective if any reasonable basis for counsel’s decision existed at the time of trial. Commonwealth v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599 , 235 A.2d 349 (1967). Rather, we should scrupulously follow the presumption that attorneys act in the interests of their clients, and insist that Appellant meet his burden of proving that his attorneys had no reasonable basis for their action. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Watson, 523 Pa. 51, 65 , 565 A.2d 132, 139 (1989).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, you should view the testimony of an accomplice With disfavor because it comes from a corrupt and polluted source, Second, you should examine the testimony of an accomplice closely and accept it only with care and caution. Third, you should consider whether the testimony of an accomplice is supported, in whole or in part, by other evidence. Accomplice testimony is more dependable if supported by independent evidence. [However, even if there is no independent supporting evidence, you may still find the defendant guilty solely on the basis of an accomplice's ■testimony if, after using the special rules I just told you about, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accomplice testified truthfully and the defendant is guilty.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.