2003 Pa. Super. 288 - Commonwealth v. Choice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he majority relies on that statement repeated so often it has become an adage that, “the evidence will not be used solely for the purposes of impeachment.” This is proof of the reality of the legal maxim, “communis error facit jus,” or “common error, repeated many times, makes law.” I believe that what we have called a four-prong test is really only a three[-] prong [ ]test. Prong # 3, the “only for impeachment” prong, is just an extension of Prong # 4, that the new evidence would not affect the outcome. Normally, evidence that just would tend to impeach what a witness said would not change the outcome at a new trial. A bald statement that evidence that only impeaches would never justify a new trial defies common sense and justice. Assume, for example, that a defendant is convicted of a robbery when the victim cannot make an identification, and the sole identification is made by a citizen who comes forth later to report that he witnessed the robbery and saw the defendant, whom he recognized. The witness identifies the defendant at trial. Suppose later it is discovered that this witness was an enemy of the defendant and in fact was a prisoner in an out-of-state jail at the time the robbery took place. Under the language of the rule as has been enunciated, this testimony about the witnesses’ jailing, proving that it was impossible for him to see what he said he saw, would not be enough to allow a new trial.... Since testimony about the incarceration would “be used solely for”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Perrin · Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.