Commonwealth v. Pritchett’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably Commonwealth v. Herron (1977), 337 Pa. Super. 332 - Commonwealth v. Bonasorte (1984)
40 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 Roviaro v. United States · Williams v. Florida · Wardius v. Oregon · Dardi v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony and other relevant factors.’”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“A mere allegation that the informant’s testimony might be helpful will not suffice . . . [citations omitted]. However, the defendant cannot be expected to predict exactly what the informant would say on the stand. Rather, in keeping with Roviaro and Carter , “all the defendant must show is a reasonable possibility that the anonymous informer could give evidence that would exonerate him.” Price v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 836 , 463 P.2d 721 , 83 Cal.Rptr. 369 (1970). Commonwealth v. Pritchett, supra, 225 Pa.Super. at 407-08 , 312 A.2d at 438 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A mere allegation that the informant's testimony might be helpful will not suffice. See, e.g., State v. Dotson, 260 La. 471 , 256 So.2d 594 (1972); Lannom v. United States, 381 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1041 , 88 S.Ct. 784 , 19 L.Ed.2d 833 (1968). However, the defendant cannot be expected to predict exactly what the informant would say on the stand. Rather, in keeping with Roviaro and Carter , `all the defendant must show [or offer] is a reasonable possibility that the anonymous informer could give evidence that would exonerate him.' Price v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 836 , 463 P.2d 721 , 83 Cal.Rptr. 369 (1970). This means that where the defendant asserts the possibility of entrapment, he should present, in support of his contention that the informant may exculpate him, facts relating directly to the two elements of the entrapment defense, i.e., `(1) a defendant not disposed to commit the crime, and also (2) conduct likely to entrap the innocently disposed.' Commonwealth v. Conway, 196 Pa.Super. 97, 104 , 173 A.2d 776 (1961). See United States v. Waters, 288 F.Supp. 952 (D.Mass. 1968)." [Emphasis added.]”
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.