Commonwealth v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 21 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “With the 1995 amendments to the PCRA, the General Assembly has established a scheme in which PCRA petitions are to be accorded finality. With certain exceptions, challenges to a conviction must be raised either within one year of final judgment or within one year of the effective date of the act. Because the one-year period within which petitions normally must be filed is sufficiently generous to prepare even the most difficult case, and because the exceptions to this filing period encompass government misconduct, after-discovered evidence, and constitutional changes, we have no difficulty in concluding that the PCRA’s time limitation upon the filing of PCRA petitions does not unreasonably or unconstitutionally limit Peterkin’s constitutional right to habeas corpus relief. At some point, litigation must come to an end. The purpose of law is not to provide convicted criminals with the means to escape well-deserved sanctions, but to provide a reasonable opportunity for those who have been wrongly convicted to demonstrate the injustice of their conviction. The current PCRA places time limitations on such claims of error, and in so doing, strikes a reasonable balance between society’s need for finality in criminal cases and the convicted person’s need to demonstrate that there has been an error in the proceedings that resulted in his conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 58 F. Supp. 2d 587 - Holman v. Gillis

2. “Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 129 - Commonwealth v. Fenati

3. “[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 non-waivable.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. George Banks v. Martin Horn Commissioner Pa Dept of Corrections