2001 Pa. Super. 31 - Commonwealth v. Whiting’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Without raising this issue in any form of objection or motion, Whiting effectively waived his challenge to the search of the car. We have been unable to find any evidence of an oral motion to amend Whiting’s ’ pre-trial suppression order, nor do the docket sheets refer to such a filing. Accordingly, it was improper, and therefore an abuse of discretion for the trial court to voluntarily raise this issue and rale upon it in Whiting’s favor where he never raised the issue in any suppression motion, let alone with specificity and particularity. Moreover, it was improper for the reason that the court never took any testimony or evidence at the suppression hearing on this issue and, therefore, could not make an informed decision under Pa.R.Crim.[P.] 323(i). [7] Finally, the Commonwealth was not able to fulfill its burden of presenting evidence on the issue and establishing that such challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights. In fact, the transcribed testimony of the suppression hearing only touches upon the consent to search Whiting’s car.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 182 - Commonwealth v. Banks