Commonwealth v. Saranchak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 46 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On October 15, 1993, Daniel Saranchak ... was drinking with a friend, Roy Miles (Miles), at Mickey Courtney’s Sportsman Bar (Courtney’s Bar) in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. [Saranchak] told Miles that he knew where they could acquire some money, but that they might have to kill someone to obtain it. Thereafter, the two men left the bar and went to [Saranchak’s] brother’s house. [Saranchak] obtained a .22 caliber rifle from his brother, feigning that he and Miles were going hunting. After leaving his brother’s house, [Saranchak] and Miles went to a second bar and purchased two quarts of beer before driving to a residence in Cumbola, Pennsylvania (the Residence) shared by [Saranchak’s] 87-year-old grandmother (Grandmother) and his uncle, Edmund Saranchak (Uncle). Before entering the Residence, [Saranc-hak] stated that he was going to get some money from Grandmother. [Sar-anchak] and Miles entered tnhe Residence through an unlocked basement door. Once inside, [Saranchak] walked directly to the sofa in the basement and shot Uncle in the head killing him almost instantly. [Saranchak] rolled Uncle over, while Miles rifled through the victim’s pockets stealing his money. [Saranchak] and Miles then went to Grandmother’s second floor bedroom. [Saranchak] asked Miles to shoot Grandmother, but he refused. Upon awakening, Grandmother asked, “Danny is that you?” [Saranchak] then fatally shot Grandmother once in the head. [Sar-anchak] and Miles proceeded to lower the bedroom’s blinds and sear”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saranchak v. Beard

2. “This case is wholly distinguishable [from Ramos ]. Here, the CYS caseworker was concerned with the plight of [Sar-anchak’s] children. She was a stranger to any aspect of the criminal case. Her question regarding the murders was purely conversational and was not made with the purpose of soliciting information from [Saranchak] about the crimes. If taken to its logical conclusion, [Sar-anchak’s] argument, in essence, is that any governmental employee would • be required to provide Miranda rights before engaging in conversation. Assuming one was in jail, this would include maintenance staff cleaning the facility, cooks preparing food and volunteers offering solace. However, our Court, in Ramos , did not enunciate such a broad rule and such a broad interpretation is not warranted here.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Saranchak v. Beard

3. “even if [Saranchak] would have developed psychiatric testimony concerning diminished capacity, the defense would have failed.” Id. 17 . Attorney Watkins' time sheets indicate that Saranchak informed him of his desire to plead guilty on August 26, 1994. (PCRA, Exhibit No. 9, Bill for Services (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Saranchak v. Beard