Commonwealth v. Lowery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 6 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Apprendi , the appellant pled guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose and one count of possession of an antipersonnel bomb. A New Jersey trial judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the crime was racially motivated and that the state’s hate crime sentencing enhancement applied. [The][a]ppellant was sentenced on one of the firearm possession counts to a 12-year term of imprisonment and to shorter concurrent sentences on the other two counts. The maximum sentence for the firearms count was ten years. A divided New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. [The United States] Supreme Court reversed, holding that: [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 49 - Commonwealth v. Ryerson

2. ““(1) [that] the witnesses existed; (2) [that] the witnesses were available; (3) that counsel was informed of the existence of the witnesses or should have known of the witnesses’ existence; (4) that the witnesses were available and prepared to cooperate and would have testified on appellant’s behalf; and (5) that the absence of the testimony prejudiced the appellant.” Commonwealth v. Crawley, 541 Pa. 408 , 415, 663 A.2d 676 , 679-80 (1995); Commonwealth v. Lowery, 784 A.2d 795, 800 (Pa. Super. 2001). Here, the only element of this standard in dispute is whether or not the absence of testimony from Michael and Brian Kane prejudiced the appellant.”

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

3. “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. With that exception, we endorse the statement of the rule ... [that] [i]t is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 203 - Commonwealth v. Griffin