Lawson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Bjecause of the improper information given to the jury regarding the maximum sentence it could fix, no one will ever know what sentence the jury would have recommended if it had deliberated Appellant’s punishment in reference to the proper maximum penalty “goalpost”twenty (20) years. While we may reasonably assume that the jury would not have chosen the minimum penalty of ten (10) years by recommending the minimum sentence on each offense to be served concurrently (because the jury did have full knowledge of the minimum penalty), we have no basis to assume that the jury would necessarily have chosen the maximum penalty of twenty (20) years if it was in possession of full and complete information about the penalty range. The jury could easily have again selected the midpoint of the range — fifteen (15) years. Although we recognize that the' trial court may again elect to sentence Appellant to a total sentence of twenty (20) years, we believe due process entitles Appellant to a jury recommendation as to whether the sentences for his convictions run concurrently or consecutively, and we also know that the jury’s recommendation will be considered by the trial court before it makes a final decision.”

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

2. “Even if we assume arguendo that Appellant may have originally merely "borrowed" the Firebird with the intention of returning it to his step-uncle's used car lot without anyone knowing-a theory which, itself, rests on nothing more than pure speculation and the fact that the car's owner was Appellant's step-uncle-Appellant unquestionably changed his intentions when he began his attempt to avoid detection. After hearing the evidence that Appellant undertook a reckless flight-literally, as the Firebird became airborne at one point-from police authorities, actually abandoned the vehicle in a median, and escaped on foot, no reasonable jury could conclude that Appellant intended to return the Firebird to its rightful owner during the entirety of time he operated the vehicle.”

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

3. “"suggested] a more informative and correct verdict form in this case would read: We, the jury, recommend that the sentences fixed for the Defendant under Counts 1 and 2 above shall be served concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one to begin after the completion of the other), in whole or in part, as follows ...” (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Davis v. Commonwealth