168 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Cramer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 9 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We think common fairness made it the duty of the Commonwealth to have produced these witnesses in court at the trial, or to show reasonable efforts to produce them; or, in view of the defendant’s efforts to obtain the witnesses, that a continuance be granted. All of the difficulty and any motion for a continuance would have been avoided had the Commonwealth conformed to the practice suggested in Commonwealth v. Sarkis et al., 164 Pa.Super. 194, 199 , 63 A.2d 360 , and had the eyewitnesses present in court, notifying the defendant that the Commonwealth would not call them. See also Commonwealth v. Keller, 191 Pa. 122, 134 , 43 A. 198 ; Commonwealth v. Deitrick, 221 Pa. 7, 15 , 70 A. 275 . The question was not whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses would be helpful to the Commonwealth,—which was not bound to call them. The appellant’s contention in this regard is sustained.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 301 Pa. Super. 187 - Commonwealth v. Wolfe