Commonwealth v. Chandler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 44 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “However, I would suggest that the better practice and policy is to require trial courts to give a Simmons instruction in all death penalty proceedings, regardless of whether counsel raises the issue of a defendant’s potential future dangerousness during the penalty phase. Under this practice, a jury considering the death penalty would automatically be informed, before deliberations began, of what life imprisonment actually means in Pennsylvania at the time of the instruction. In my opinion, a standard Simmons instruction would, in the first instance, serve to clarify that issue for the jury. For example, ... commutation is, at this time, a possibility in Pennsylvania for those serving life sentences, and therefore proper for the jury’s consideration.... Moreover, I can see no prejudice that the Commonwealth would suffer if every defendant facing a sentence of death received a Simmons jury instruction explaining, as thoroughly as possible, what “life imprisonment” means in Pennsylvania.”

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

2. ““[ejvidence concerning the previous relations between a defendant and a victim is relevant and admissible for the purpose of proving ill-will, motive or malice.... This principle applies when the decedent was the spouse of the accused. Thus, evidence concerning the nature of the marital relationship is admissible for the purpose of proving ill-will, motive or malice. This includes, in particular, evidence that the accused physically abused his or her spouse____ Evidence of prior abuse is also admissible if it is ‘part of a chain or sequence of events which formed the history of the case and was part of its natural development.’ “Those statements were admissible under the ‘state of mind’ exception to the hearsay rule because decedents opinion of defendant and her marriage to him went to the presence of ill-will, malice, or motive for the killing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Snyder v. State

3. “In Commonwealth v. Murphy, 540 Pa. 318 , 657 A.2d 927 (1995), we rejected an identical argument, noting that such a claim “ ‘is mere makeweight, and a rather blatant attempt to bootstrap. We have found no ... [errors], and no number of failed claims may collectively attain merit if they could not do so individually.’ ” Id. at 336 n. 6, 657 A.2d at 936 n. 6 (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 532 Pa. 265 , [278,] 615 A.2d 716 [, 722] (1992)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 101 - Commonwealth v. Todd