Fisher v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Stockton v. Commonwealth (1991), Bassett v. Commonwealth (1981)
32 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 Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Barber v. Page · Mattox v. United States · Mancusi v. Stubbs
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both these witnesses were present and were fully examined and cross-examined on the former trial. It is claimed, however, that the constitutional provision that the accused shall “be confronted with the witnesses against him” was infringed, by permitting the testimony of witnesses sworn upon the former trial to be read against him. $ ^ ^ [T]he authority in favor of the admissibility of such testimony, where the defendant was present either at the examination of the deceased witness before a committing magistrate, or upon a former trial of the same case, is overwhelming. There is doubtless reason for the saying that the accused should never lose the benefit ... of that personal presence of the witness before the jury which the law designed for his protection. But general rules of law of this kind, however beneficent in their operation and valuable to the accused, must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of the case. To say that a criminal, after having once been convicted by the testimony of a certain witness, should go scot free simply because death has closed the mouth of that witness, would be carrying his constitutional protection to an unwarrantable extent. The law in its wisdom declares that the rights of the public shall not be wholly sacrificed in order that an incidental benefit may be preserved to the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he robbery and murder indictments grew out of one transaction, the events of which took place “in a matter of split second.” The evidence of the murder necessarily included the facts surrounding the robbery. And defendant’s cross-examination [at the preliminary hearing] unavoidably dealt not only with the two issues common to both charges ... but also with the details of the robbery. Under these circumstances, such evidence was properly received by the trial court in support of the robbery indictment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider whether testimony given by a witness during a preliminary hearing on a murder charge may properly be received as substantive evidence for the prosecution in the subsequent trial for both the murder and a robbery arising out of the same occurrence when the witness is deceased at the time of trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.