Commonwealth v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 33 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “would not have materially furthered the impeachment of Jackson at trial as he was already extensively impeached by both appellant and Reese. Indeed, each codefendant cross-examined Jackson on the following: every inconsistency in his four police statements; that he was testifying on behalf of the Commonwealth pursuant to a plea bargain; and that he had several open robbery charges still pending and his testimony was motivated by a desire to receive lenient sentences for those crimes. Any additional impeachment of Jackson arising from a police notation would have been cumulative. Accordingly, the Commonwealth did not violate Brady by not disclosing this police activity sheet as appellant has failed to show its materiality.”

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

2. “[t]he newly discovered evidence exception, set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(h) ... does not require a merits analysis of the claim in order for it to qualify as timely and warranting merits review. The exception merely requires that the “facts” upon which such a claim is predicated must not have been known to appellant, nor could they have been ascertained by due diligence.”

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

3. “within sixty days of the date of the order which finally resolves the previous PCRA petition, because this is the first `date the claim could have been presented.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Robinson, A., Aplt.