Commonwealth v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) trial defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, develop, and present substantial mitigating evidence; (2) trial counsel was precluded from informing the jury, and the jury was never instructed, that petitioner would be ineligible for parole if he were sentenced to life imprisonment; (3) the trial court’s instructions regarding the catch-all mitigating factor prevented the jury from considering relevant mitigating evidence that was present in this case, and the trial court’s definition of the prepon- deranee of evidence standard was inadequate; (4) trial counsel was ineffective, and the trial court erred, with respect to the existence of the “grave risk” aggravating factor, and the Commonwealth failed to provide petitioner with adequate notice of the “grave risk” factor; (5) the prosecutor engaged in numerous acts of misconduct; (6) trial defense counsel was ineffective by not objecting when allegedly improper victim impact testimony was presented and argued to the jury; (7) the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the nature and use of aggravating and mitigating factors; (8) trial defense counsel was ineffective for failure to present material and relevant evidence, which violated petitioner’s right to present a defense; (9) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move in limine to redact the numerous references to the victim as “white guy” in petitioner’s statement to police; (10) the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 F. Supp. 3d 618 - Hall v. Beard

2. “that he discussed the penalty phase of the trial with [petitioner], explained that the Commonwealth would be presenting aggravating factors, and informed [petitioner] that he could present mitigating factors. Additionally, counsel testified that [petitioner] remained steadfast in his refusal to testify, even after he was advised by counsel that it would be in his best interest.... Indeed, Appellant informed counsel that he did not want his mother or any of the other witnesses who counsel had contacted to testify as to his good character. Notwithstanding [petitioner’s] objections, trial counsel chose to call [petitioner’s] mother and the mother of one of his children, both of whom essentially testified that [petitioner] had a “good heart” and was a caring person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 F. Supp. 3d 618 - Hall v. Beard

3. “trial counsel testified at length during the remand hearing regarding his efforts at ascertaining potential mitigating evidence.... Specifically, he testified that he discussed the penalty phase of the trial with [petitioner], explained that the Commonwealth would be presenting aggravating factors, and informed [petitioner] that he could present mitigating factors. Additionally, counsel testified that [petitioner] remained steadfast in his refusal to testify, even after he was advised by counsel that it would be in his best interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 F. Supp. 3d 618 - Hall v. Beard