Commonwealth v. Fears’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Collins (2005), Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008)
2 federal appellate · 65 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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · McNeil v. Wisconsin · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the defendant has waived a jury trial or pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose unless waived by the defendant with the consent of the Commonwealth, in which case the trial judge shall hear the evidence and determine the penalty in the same manner as would a jury....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Horn · Miller v. Beard“Appellant also argues that counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to first degree murder because the evidence establishes a lesser degree of homicide. In Commonwealth v. Marsh, 440 Pa. 590 , 271 A.2d 481, 483 (Pa. 1970), we held that the key question is whether the defendant had the opportunity to make a reasonable choice. This claim lacks arguable merit because Appellant was advised of the elements of first degree murder as well as the differences between the various degrees of criminal homicide prior to the entrance of his plea in open court. Thus, Appellant had an opportunity to make a reasoned decision. Commonwealth v. Fears, 575 Pa. 281 , 836 A.2d 52 , 64 n. 11 (2003) (record citation omitted). The relative brevity of our analysis, of course, does not reflect upon the performance of counsel in raising and developing the issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Harmless error exists where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontra-dicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.”
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.