Commonwealth v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 125 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On the first counseled petition in a death penalty case, no discovery shall be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, except upon leave of court after a showing of good cause.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Miller · Commonwealth v. Brown

2. “There is evidence in this case that the deceased died of two gunshot wounds that pierced the kidney and the liver. As to that, the law holds that where anyone, without sufficient cause or provocation, unlawfully kills another by using a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim’s body with the manifest intention to so use it, an inference may be drawn, once again, as was the inference of malice, that could arise by the use of deadly weapon on the vital part of a body. This is a permissible evidentiary inference and you don’t have to draw it. It may be drawn in the absence of qualifying circumstances. By common knowledge, such use of a deadly weapon is likely to cause death. Thus, an intent to kill may be inferred by reason of the killer’s use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body of the victim. You will recall the definition of a deadly weapon and what constitutes a vital part of the human body. Note well, you are not to infer this intent to kill if the facts and circumstances indicate a contrary intent. In shori, you are not bound by this inference of the intent to kill arising from the killer’s use of a deadly weapon upon a vital pari of the body, but you may or may not apply it under the facts and circumstances as you find them and as you see fit in your intelligence and mutual and collective wisdoms. Further, the nature of the weapon used may be quite material in ascertaining whether there was or was not an intent to kill, but that intent must still, in every”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Fletcher

3. “In Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994) (plurality), a plurality of the United States Supreme Court would have held that, if a prosecutor argues a capital defendant’s future dangerousness at a sentencing trial, the defendant may request and should be granted a jury instruction that a penalty of life in prison will render the defendant ineligible for parole. Id. at 170 , 114 S.Ct. at 2197 . This Court has held that a Simmons instruction is mandated only if two events occur: (1) the prosecutor must place the defendant’s future dangerousness in issue; and (2) the defendant must have requested that the trial court issue the instruction. Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 580 Pa. 183 , 860 A.2d 31, 37 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 835 , 126 S.Ct. 63 , 163 L.Ed.2d 89 (2005); Commonwealth v. Jones, 571 Pa. 112 , 811 A.2d 994, 1004 (2002) (citing Commonwealth v. Spotz, 563 Pa. 269 , 759 A.2d 1280, 1291 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1104 , 122 S.Ct. 902 , 151 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002)). The failure to issue a Simmons charge is no basis for relief where these circumstances are not met. Jones, 811 A.2d at 1004 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers