Turpin v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Without forewarning to the trial bar, we have quietly and subtly shifted this rule to a new one stating that no prejudice is presumed when a party is forced to use peremptory challenges to excuse jurors who should have been excused for cause unless that party not only then exhausts all peremptory challenges available to him, but also requests additional challenges on grounds that he was unfairly denied challenges for cause, or, at the least, before having a right to complain a party must state on the record additional persons against whom he would have exercised peremptory challenges had such challenges been available to him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Shane v. Commonwealth

2. “(1) If the offense charged is a felony, the Commonwealth is entitled to five (5) peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly to eight (8) peremptory challenges. . . . (2) If one (1) or two (2) additional jurors are called, the number of peremptory challenges allowed each side shall be increased by one (1). (3) If more than one defendant is being tried, the court may at its discretion allow additional peremptory challenges to each defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Springer v. Commonwealth

3. “Turpin can demonstrate no prejudice or constitutional violation because the jurors were removed for cause by the defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stopher v. Commonwealth