Commonwealth v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 93 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The test for determining whether a prospective juror should be disqualified is whether he is willing and able to eliminate the influence of any scruples and render a verdict according to the evidence, and this is to be determined on the basis of answers to questions and demeanor. ... It must be determined whether any biases or prejudices can be put aside on proper instruction of the court. ... A challenge for cause should be granted when the prospective juror has such a close relationship, familial, financial, or situational, with the parties, counsel, victims, or witnesses that the court will presume a likelihood of prejudice or demonstrates a likelihood of prejudice by his or her conduct or answers to questions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Briggs · 2017 Pa. Super. 141 - Commonwealth v. Rush

2. “In establishing whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses, a defendant must prove the witnesses existed, the witnesses were ready and willing to testify, and the absence of the witnesses' testimony prejudiced petitioner and denied him a fair trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re RD · 2011 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Johnson

3. “Cox was required to establish that the fact upon which he bases his claim was unknown to him and that he could not have discovered it through due diligence. The fact upon which Cox’s claim is based is the conclusion that the second Davis bullet was not fired from the gun used in the Watson murder. This conclusion resulted from the ballistics analysis performed by Officers Walker and Cruz. Cox did not discover this fact until Officers Walker and Cruz issued their report on April 30, 2013; it was therefore unknown to him until that date. Cox cannot, however, establish that he could not have ascertained this fact through the exercise of due diligence. ... Cox’s initial attempt to obtain the ballistics evidence was made in his first PCRA petition, in connection with his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek independent ballistics testing. The salient question is whether in so doing, Cox acted with reasonable effort to discover the facts upon which his claim is based. ... [Tjhere is no question that Cox knew that more testing could be performed on the ballistics evidence at the time of trial in 1995. It was not until six years later, in 2001, that Cox first attempted to obtain the ballistics evidence through his first PCRA petition, in connection with his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek independent testing thereof. By raising this claim in his first PCRA petition, Cox has effectively conceded that the testing could have been done at th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 25 - Commonwealth v. Smallwood