Commonwealth v. Rivers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “PCRA claims are not merely direct appeal claims that are made at a later stage of the proceedings, cloaked in a boilerplate assertion of counsel's ineffectiveness. In essence, they are extraordinary assertions that the system broke down. To establish claims of constitutional error or ineffectiveness of counsel, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of evidence that the system failed ( i.e., for an ineffectiveness or constitutional error claim, that in the circumstances of his case, including the facts established at trial, guilt or innocence could not have been adjudicated reliably), that his claim has not been previously litigated or waived, and where a claim was not raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings, that counsel could not have had a rational strategic or tactical reason for failing to litigate these claims earlier.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Roane · 2016 Pa. Super. 124 - Commonwealth v. Roane

2. “To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1)That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is granted: (1) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime; (ii)awaiting execution of a sentence of death for the crime; or (in) serving a sentence which must expire before the person may commence serving the disputed sentence. (2) That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following: (i) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (iii) A plea of guilt unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent. (iv)- The improper obstruction by government officials of the petitioner’s right of appeal where a meritorious appeal-able issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court. (v) Deleted. (vi) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 80 - Commonwealth v. Lauro

3. “A cursory reading of the PCRA reveals that PCRA petitioners, to be eligible for relief, must, inter aha, plead and prove their assertions by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 9543(a). Inherent in this pleading and proof requirement is that the petitioner must not only state what his issues are, but also he must demonstrate in his pleadings and briefs how the issues will be proved. Moreover, allegations of constitutional violation ... must be discussed “in the circumstances of the case.” Section 9543(a)(2)(i). Additionally, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of evidence that because of the alleged constitutional violation ..., “no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” Section 9543(a)(2)(i). Finally, petitioner must plead and prove that the issue has not been waived or finally litigated, § 9543(a)(3), and if the issue has not been litigated earlier, the petitioner must plead and prove that the failure to litigate “could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel.” Section 9543(a)(4).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Bretz