Galusha v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen one is tried for an offense, upon a finding of guilt, he is entitled to have his sentence fixed with certainty and finality. Constitutional restraints prevent subsequent enhancement. Finally, we find nothing in the shock probation statute to lead one to the rational belief that a prisoner is privileged to negotiate his release in the vein of Galusha—that is agreeing to an increased sentence. In our view, entitlement to shock probation must rest upon an evaluation of a host of traditional criteria. A longer sentence may not supply the quid pro quo for probationary release. A rule which would allow a prisoner to obtain probation in exchange for a longer sentence in the event of revocation would, in our opinion, not only result in chaos, but invite intrusion of arbitrary power, something foreign to our system of government. In the end, we think such a practice would offend the due process clause and the double jeopardy clauses of both the federal and state constitutions.”

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

2. “whereby he was sentenced to the `state penitentiary for a maximum term of 20 years ....'”

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

3. “as a condition of shock probation, enhance the sentence first imposed.”

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