Commonwealth v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Freeman (2003), Commonwealth v. Carson (2006)
54 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Simmons v. United States · Manson v. Brathwaite · Hernandez v. New York · Powers v. Ohio
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 42 PAC-SA. SECTION 9721; 20[4] PA. CODE 303.10 FOR VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND JURY TRIAL CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS APPLIED THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. (APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY, U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDED JUNE 26, 2000) B. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST INSTRUCTION AND A VERDICT SLIP REQUIRING THE JURY TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATION OF THE DEADLY WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. C. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE TRIAL COURT’S DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE DEADLY WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT. D. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CAUSE OF INJURY TO THE VICTIM’S EYE. E. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESENT A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BASED UPON THE COMMONWEALTH’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE REQUISITE INTENT/MALICE UNDER 18 PAC-SA. SECTION 2702(A)(1). (AGGRAVATED ASSAULT) F.WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECIDING AND APPLYING THE WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROVISION OF THE SENTENCING CODE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, AS OPPOSED TO INSTRUCTING THE JURY TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION BY THE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is well settled that the decision to testify on one’s own behalf is ultimately to be made by the defendant after full consultation with counsel. In order to sustain a claim that counsel was ineffective for fading to call the appellant to the stand, the appellant must demonstrate either that counsel interfered with his right to testify, or that counsel gave specific advice so unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent decision to testify on his own behalf.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) the trial court erred in sua sponte raising the issue of the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by the defense; (2) at the time the issue was raised there had been no pattern of prejudice establishing prima facie discrimination and warranting explanation for the use of peremptories; and (3) placing the juror on the panel was not the appropriate remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.