2012 Pa. Super. 11 - Commonwealth v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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. “[i]n Molina , when Detective Hawthome-Bey testified that Molina refused to cooperate with her investigation, the superior court held that the detective’s testimony was “offered to denote the extent and focus of the police investigation with regard to [the victim’s] disappearance,” Molina at 56 . Because the detective’s testimony was offered for one narrow purpose, namely to demonstrate the extent and focus of the investigation, and because the revelation of Molina’s silence was limited to its context, we indicated in Molina that the mere revelation of Molina’s silence did not establish innate prejudice, nor was it used in a fashion likely to burden Molina’s fifth amendment right or create an inference of admission of guilt. Molina, at 53-54. Rather, we held that the constitutional violation only arose when the Commonwealth, during closing argument, used the detective’s testimony for a different purpose, i.e., as evidence of Molina’s guilt. Molina at 53-54, 57 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Yale

2. “Assistant District Attorney: During your investigation, did you have the occasion to locate [Appellant]? Sergeant Gretsky: Yes. Assistant District Attorney: And did you attempt to interview [Appellant]? Sergeant Gretsky: Yes we did; however, he didn’t want to speak to us at that time. Assistant District Attorney: Did you identify yourselves as law enforcement? Sergeant Gretsky: Yes. We identified ourselves and told him that we’d like to interview him in reference to the [victim’s] homicide and that his name came up in the matter. Assistant District Attorney: And in response to that what did he say? Sergeant Gretsky: He said he had nothing to say. Assistant District Attorney: What then — did you have a further conversation with him? Sergeant Gretsky: Yes. We also asked him to consent to provide us with a DNA sample with the use of a DNA collector at which time he agreed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 191 - Commonwealth v. Fischere

3. “But [Appellant] takes the odd step. He wants to — police say hey, look, you’ve been implicated in a murder. You want to talk to us? He doesn’t remain silent. He chooses to talk. And he doesn’t say you are out of your mind. I was at this party. It was a month later. I’m at this party. I was having a great time all day. I remember it was at Big Tome’s house. He didn’t say that. He says I don’t have anything to say to you. He chooses not to speak and he chose to say that. He didn’t choose to say, whoa, I got an alibi. No prison for me. You’re not catching me on a murder rap. He says I have nothing to say to you.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 191 - Commonwealth v. Fischere