2003 Pa. Super. 157 - Commonwealth v. Strong’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 2019
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Kliewer v. New Jersey · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Attwood v. Singletary · Mims v. Browning Manufacturing
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5917, the former testimony of a witness in a crimi nal proceeding who has since died is competent evidence admissible in a subsequent trial of the same criminal issue. See also Pa.R.E. 803.1. The Supreme Court has held, however, “that in order for a witness’s prior testimony to be admissible pursuant to Section 5917, the defendant against whom the testimony is to be admitted at a subsequent proceeding must have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the first proceeding.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, [], 738 A.2d 406, 417 ([Pa.]1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1131 , [] (2000) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“our scope of review is limited to an examination of that stated reason.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.