Commonwealth v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 68 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “What is clear from the above is that [the AAIDD and the DSM-IV] definitions are very similar and diagnosis under either system of classification takes into account like considerations. Therefore, we hold that a PCRA petitioner may establish his or her mental retardation under either classification system and consistent with this holding, assuming proper qualification, an expert presented by either party may testify as to mental retardation under either classification system. Moreover, consistent with both of these classification systems, we do not adopt a cutoff IQ score for determining mental ' retardation in Pennsylvania, since it is the interaction between limited intellectual functioning and deficien'cies in adaptive skills that establish mental retardation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt. · Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt.

2. “Adaptive behavior is the collection of conceptual, social, and practical skills that have been learned by people in order to function in their everyday lives, and limitations on adaptive behavior are reflected by difficulties adjusting to ordinary demands made in daily life. The AAMR recommends that such limitations should be established through the use of standardized measures. “On these standardized measures, significant limitations in adaptive behavior are operationally defined as performance that is at least two standard deviations below the mean of either (a) one of the following three types of adaptive behavior: conceptual, social, or practical, or (b) an overall score on a standardized measure of conceptual, social, and practical skills.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt. · Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt.

3. “Limited or subaverage intellectual capability is best represented by IQ scores, which are approximately two standard deviations (or 30 points) below the mean (100). The concept should also take into consideration the standard error of measurement (hereinafter “SEM”) for the specific assessment instruments used.' The SEM has been estimated to be three to five points for well-standardized measures of general intellectual functioning. Thus, for example, a subav-erage intellectual capability is commonly ascribed to those who test below 65-75 on the Weschler scales.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt. · Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt.