Commonwealth v. McGlory’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 20 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the instant case, the appellant was given full latitude to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and attack any portion of the laboratory report. There are no cases in this Commonwealth that require the production of tangible physical evidence, and ‘there exists no such rule as expounded by the defendant which would automatically necessitate his acquittal upon the Commonwealth’s failure to produce physical evidence shown to be unavailable.’ Commonwealth v. Cromartie, 222 Pa.Super. 278, 280 , 294 A.2d 762, 763 (1972); see also, Commonwealth v. Gazal, 185 Pa.Super. 91 , 137 A.2d 814 (1958). The fact that the inability of the Commonwealth to produce physical evidence in some cases would not serve as a basis for a reversal of a conviction does not mean that the Commonwealth does not have a burden in establishing the unavailability of the evidence and that the testimony is based upon an unbroken chain of events supporting the validity and connection to the evidence thereof. While the Commonwealth was unable to produce the drugs themselves because of inadvertent destruction of the evidence, the chain of custody, starting with the seizure of the materials from the appellant and leading up to the analysis of the material by the Crime Laboratory, which identified the material as narcotic drugs, was unbroken. The officer who took possession of the drugs personally delivered them to the police station where the material— as immediately packaged, labelled and placed in a safe by th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 274 Pa. Super. 233 - Commonwealth v. Watson

2. “there exists no such rule as expounded by the defendant which would automatically necessitate his acquittal upon the Commonwealth's failure to produce physical evidence shown to be unavailable.”

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

3. “If the instant case does not supply [probable] cause, we would be hard-pressed to identify an appropriate and lawful set of circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 765 F. Supp. 227 - Valenti v. Sheeler