Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Drummond, G., Aplt.green2 sentences2024Appellant argues that when Judge Hughes gave the questionable jury instruction in the Drummond case, she stated, “I find it helpful to view reasonable doubt in this way,” demonstrating that when she presided over his non-jury trial, she “viewed the law in a way that had a diminished standard of proof, since she said so in open court, with these instructions.” PCRA Pet. at 10-13 (citing Drummond, 285 A.3d at 631). 2024The Supreme Court held that Judge Hughes’s use of a hypothetical analogizing reasonable doubt to making a decision about a serious surgery for a loved one was reasonably likely to cause the jury to apply a diminished standard of proof. 285 A.3d at 636-37. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Killinger
green
2 sentences2007Williams, 832 A.2d at 984 ; cf. Commonwealth v. Killinger, 585 Pa. 92 , 888 A.2d 592 (2005)(holding that the registration and community notification provisions applicable to non-SVP offenders also do not implicate Apprendi, because those provisions attach automatically upon conviction of a predicate offense and require no judicial factfinding by a diminished standard of proof). 2007Williams, 832 A.2d at 984 ; cf. Commonwealth v. Killinger, 585 Pa. 92 , 888 A.2d 592 (2005)(holding that the registration and community notification provisions applicable to non-SVP offenders also do not implicate Apprendi, because those provisions attach automatically upon conviction of a predicate offense and require no judicial factfinding by a diminished standard of proof). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Commonwealth v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007Williams, 832 A.2d at 984 ; cf. Commonwealth v. Killinger, 585 Pa. 92 , 888 A.2d 592 (2005)(holding that the registration and community notification provisions applicable to non-SVP offenders also do not implicate Apprendi, because those provisions attach automatically upon conviction of a predicate offense and require no judicial factfinding by a diminished standard of proof). 2006In Commonwealth v. Williams, 574 Pa. 487 , 832 A.2d 962 (2003) (Williams II), we severed the lifetime penalty provisions applicable to sexually violent predators (SVP) from the Act because the Act required the judge, not a jury, to determine by a diminished standard of proof whether an offender was an SVP. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Nos. 96-5132, 96-5416
green
1 sentence2005The excessiveness of the lifetime sanction there at issue informed our inquiry to the extent that we recognized that “even ... incarceration [is] not punitive in all contexts,” id. at 982 (citing Verniero, 119 F.3d at 1101-02 ), but the linchpin of our holding, rather than excessiveness, reflected the impermissibility of imposing greater punishment on SVP offenders than non-SVP offenders where the only difference between those two classes of offenders is a judicial finding by a diminished standard of proof. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.