Commonwealth v. Briggs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

137 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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant does not have a right not to be prosecuted; he does, however, have a right to have his case reviewed by an administrator of justice with his mind on the public purpose, not by an advocate whose judgment may be blurred by subjective reasons.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Markun · Commonwealth v. Robinson, A., Aplt.

2. “A request for a change of venue or venire is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to assess the atmosphere 6f the community and to judge the necessity of the requested change. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed. A change of venue becomes necessary when the trial court determines that a fair and impartial jury cannot be selected in the county in which the crime occurred. [The defendant] argues that the trial court should have made such a determination in the present case, as the case, involving as it did the heinous death of an 8-year-old child, was extremely newsworthy in the New Castle area. Ordinarily, however, a defendant is not entitled to a change of venue unless he or she can show that pre-trial publicity resulted in actual prejudice that prevented the impaneling of an impartial jury. The mere existence of pretrial publicity does not warrant a presumption of prejudice. There is an exception to the requirement that the defendant demonstrate actual prejudice. Pre-trial publicity will be presumed to have been prejudicial if the defendant is able to prove that the publicity was sensational, inflammatory, and slanted toward conviction, rather than factual or objective; that such publicity revealed the defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, or referred to confessions, admissions, or reenactments of the crime by the defendant; or that it was derived from official police and prosecut”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Tanner · Commonwealth v. Chmiel

3. “[The Pennsylvania Supreme Court] ha[s] previously held that such 'incorporation by reference' is an unacceptable manner of appellate advocacy for the proper presentation of a claim for relief to our Court. Commonwealth v. Edmiston , 535 Pa. 210 , 238 n. 3, 634 A.2d 1078 , 1092 n.3 (1993) (specifying that all claims a litigant desires our court to consider are required to be set forth in the appellate brief and not just incorporated by reference); Pines v. Farrell , 577 Pa. 564 , 570 n.3, 848 A.2d 94 , 97 n.3 (2004) (holding that reliance on the 'briefs and pleadings already filed in this case' was 'not a recommended form of advocacy' and noting that 'this Court is not obliged to root through the record and determine what arguments, if any, respondent forwarded below, nor are we obliged to fashion an argument on his behalf.'). Our rules of appellate procedure specifically require a party to set forth in his or her brief, in relation to the points of his argument or arguments, 'discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent,' as well as citations to statutes and opinions of appellate courts and 'the principle for which they are cited.' Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b). Therefore[,] our appellate rules do not allow incorporation by reference of arguments contained in briefs filed with other tribunals ... as a substitute for the proper presentation of arguments in the body of the appellate brief.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Upper Moreland Township School District v. Crisafi · E. Jones v. School District of Philadelphia