Commonwealth v. Cichy’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 249 Pa. Super. 149 - In the Interest of DelSignore (1977), Monroe v. State (1995)
38 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 Commonwealth v. Johnston · Commonwealth v. Bailey · State v. . Minton · United States v. Collon · 85 Ga. App. 119 - Anthony v. State
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we recognize the accuracy of fingerprint evidence for purposes of identification, the probative value of that evidence depends entirely on the circumstances of each case. Unless those circumstances are such that the fingerprint could only have been impressed at the time and place the crime was committed, such evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although we recognized the accuracy of fingerprint evidence for purposes of identification, the probative value of that evidence depends entirely on the circumstances of each case. Unless those circumstances are such that the fingerprint could only have been impressed at the time and place the crime was committed, such evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Convictions have been sustained where fresh fingerprints are found at the place of illegal entry to private burglarized premises where a defendant’s presence is unexplained. See: McCargo v. State, 3 Md.App. 646 , 241 A.2d 161 (1968); United States v. Butler, 390 F.2d 620 (4th Cir. 1968); People v. Taylor,, 32 Ill.2d 165 , 204 N.E.2d 734 (1965); State v. Pittman, 10 N.C.App. 508 , 179 S.E.2d 198 (1971); State v. Allen, 420 S.W.2d 330 (Mo.1967); see, generally, Annotation, 28 A.L.R.2d 1115 . However, the mere discovery of prints in a public place with which a number of people may have had innocent contact is insufficient by itself to convict. State v. Minton, 228 N.C. 518 , 46 S.E.2d 296 (1948); Anthony v. State, 85 Ga.App. 119 , 68 S.E.2d 150 (1951); Mclain v. State, 198 Miss. 831 , 24 So.2d 15 (1945); Graves v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.App. 68 , 43 S.W.2d 953 (1931). Similarly, where the prints are found in a place accessible only by the application of force or on objects with which the defendant could not have had legitimate contact, that evidence has been held sufficient. United States ex rel. Chiarello v. Mancusi, 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . (I)f the prints are discovered on an object that is readily movable and in common usage, the possibility of innocent contact is too great to sustain a conviction on that evidence alone.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Engdall v. State · In Re Mjh
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.