Commonwealth v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hart · 2011 Pa. Super. 115 - Hill v. Randolph

2. “The critical flaw in the Superior Court’s reasoning in Young , and in its decision in the present matter, was its legal conclusion that a finally litigated ruling on the voluntariness of a confession was also fully and completely determinative of the factual accuracy of the confession and, thus, dispositive of the issue of actual guilt or innocence. This was improper since the issue of the voluntariness of a confession — i.e. whether it was obtained in a manner which did not violate the due process rights of the defendant under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions — is entirely separate from the issue of whether a defendant’s admissions in the confession conclusively establish, factually, that he or she committed the acts which form the basis for his or her conviction. As these are two separate and distinct questions, the resolution of each involves fundamentally different considerations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 35 - Commonwealth v. Gandy

3. “Nowhere in subsections (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii)(A), or in any of the other provisions of Section 9543.1, did the legislature include an explicit prohibition to prevent a convicted individual who has confessed to a crime, and who otherwise meets all of the statutory requirements, from obtaining DNA testing, merely because of the existence of the confession. Neither do we perceive any reasonable reading of the entirety of the text of Section 9543.1 which would impliedly support such a restrictive construction. Consequently, absent any such express or implicit direction by the legislature, it was improper for the Superior Court to judicially engraft such a barrier to DNA testing into this statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 35 - Commonwealth v. Gandy