Commonwealth v. Orie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On March 3, 2011, as the jury was starting its first full day of deliberations, the Commonwealth informed the trial court that it believed there had been a fraud upon the court. The trial court halted jury deliberations. Following the arrival of defense counsel, the Commonwealth alleged that two defense exhibits had been forged. Ultimately, after permitting both parties to argue the appropriate remedy for the alleged forgery and allowing the Commonwealth to present expert testimony in support of the allegation that the documents were forged, the trial court declared a mistrial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 44 - Commonwealth v. Orie · 2011 Pa. Super. 190 - Commonwealth v. Orie

2. “We emphasize that the appellate court’s consideration of a petition for review in the Brady setting is preliminary in nature. Thus, in a case such as this one, it does not answer the merits of the underlying question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial. That question will be answered if the appeal is permitted to go forward under [Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602 , 373 A.2d 90 (1977) ]. Again, at the Brady petition for review stage, the appellate court’s focus is on the finding of frivolousness. Of course, the appellate court’s review of the trial court’s finding of frivolousness may require some preliminary assessment of the ruling or event giving rise to the double jeopardy challenge — here, Petitioner’s challenge to the underlying propriety of the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial.... * * * Accordingly, we direct the Superior Court to consider the merits of Petitioner’s previously filed Petition for Review as it concerns the trial court’s determination of frivolousness....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 190 - Commonwealth v. Orie

3. “WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN LABELING [PETITIONER’S] DOUBLE JEOPARDY CHALLENGE AS “FRIVOLOUS” BECAUSE IT IS HARDLY CLEARLY AND PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE LINKING ANY WRONGDOING TO [PETITIONER], THE SIGNATURES IN QUESTION WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE TRIAL, COULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED FOR A NON-NEFARIOUS PURPOSE, THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENTS WAS BEFORE THE JURY AND FOR THE JURY, THE PROSECUTION HAD AMPLE TIME TO CHALLENGE THEM, THE TRIAL COURT HASTILY DECLARED A MISTRIAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING LESS DRASTIC ALTERNATIVES AND A MISTRIAL WAS GRANTED TO PRECLUDE THE JURY FROM ACQUITTING [PETITIONER]?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 190 - Commonwealth v. Orie