2003 Pa. Super. 94 - Commonwealth v. Santiago’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Kyles v. Whitley · Massiah v. United States · Maine v. Moulton · Kuhlmann v. Wilson
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 804. Hearsay exceptions; de-clarant unavailable * * * (b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following statements, as hereinafter defined, are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: [[Image here]] (2) Statement under belief of impending death. A statement made by a declarant while believing that the de-clarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. * * * (6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing. A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the de-clarant as a witness.”
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.