2012 Pa. Super. 214 - Commonwealth v. Castro’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 evidence in the article could not have been obtained prior to trial by reasonable diligence.... Although [the newspapers] had published articles on [Officer Cujdik’s brother] prior to [the March 30 article], Castro had no basis for knowing of Officer Richard Cujdik’s involvement, and could not have been expected to discover it through reasonable diligence. [T]he evidence described in the March 30, 2009 news article is not merely corroborative or cumulative of the evidence presented at trial. At trial, Castro did not attack Officer Richard Cujdik’s prior conduct because he had no basis to challenge his credibility. Thus, the evidence may be used to attack the veracity of Officer Richard Cujdik’s warrant and the evidence surrounding Castro’s arrest. [W]hile the evidence in the ... article may be used to impeach the credibility of Officer Richard Cujdik, the evidence will not be used solely for that purpose .... Castro may use this evidence in filing a motion to compel the identity of CI-142 in order to determine whether Officer Richard Cujdik also made false claims in applying for a warrant to search Castro’s home. Additionally, Castro could use the evidence to file a motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the search. [T]he evidence would likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted because it shows that Officer Richard Cujdik, the only witness to testify at Castro’s trial, engaged in a pattern of fabricating controlled buys in order to procure”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Perrin · Commonwealth v. Castro

2. “After-discovered evidence is the basis for a new trial when it: 1) has been discovered after the trial and could not have been obtained at or prior to the conclusion of trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; 2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; 3) will not be used solely for impeaching the credibility of a witness; and 4) is of such nature and character that a new verdict will likely result if a new trial is granted. Commonwealth v. Boyle, 533 Pa. 360 , 625 A.3d [A.2d] 616, 622 (1993); Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15 , 540 A.2d 246 (1988). Further, the proposed new evidence must be “producible and admissible.” Smith [ 518 Pa. at 50 ], 540 A.2d [at] 263; Commonwealth v. Scott, 503 Pa. 624 , 470 A.2d 91, 93 (1983).”

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

3. “The issue presently before us speaks to fundamental fairness. Had the news article been published four days before, rather than four days after Castro’s trial, he would have almost certainly been granted a continuance to test the allegations. We do not yet know whether Castro will be able to present a sufficient quantum of evidence to warrant vacating his conviction, but the potential for uncovering exculpatory evidence makes it more than probable that a trier of fact would come to a different conclusion. To deny Castro the opportunity to assert a proper defense at this time would exalt form over substance, which this Court declines to do.”

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