2013 Pa. Super. 99 - Commonwealth v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · Commonwealth v. Carter · Commonwealth v. Herron · Commonwealth v. Bing · Commonwealth v. Roebuck
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.
“"Our standard of review of claims that a trial court erred in its disposition of a request for disclosure of an informant's identity is confined to abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Washington , 63 A.3d 797 , 801 (Pa.Super. 2013). Under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573, a trial court has the discretion to require the Commonwealth to reveal the names and addresses of all eyewitnesses, including confidential informants, where a defendant makes a showing of material need and reasonableness: (a) In all court cases, except as otherwise provided in Rule 230 (Disclosure of Testimony Before Investigating Grand Jury), if the defendant files a motion for pretrial discovery, the court may order the Commonwealth to allow the defendant's attorney to inspect and copy or photograph any of the following requested items, upon a showing that they are material to the preparation of the defense, and that the request is reasonable: (i) the names and addresses of eyewitnesses.... Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(i). The Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source. Commonwealth v. Bing , [ 551 Pa. 659 , 713 A.2d 56 (1998) ] ; Commonwealth v. Roebuck , 545 Pa. 471 , 681 A.2d 1279 , 1283 n. 6 (1996). In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i), that the information sought is material to the preparation of the defense”
2 later decisions 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.