241 Pa. Super. 470 - Commonwealth v. Elmore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Q. [By the District Attorney] Chief, among your duties as the law enforcement officer in North Sewickley Township have you had occasion to become acquainted with the house known and numbered as 1355 Brentwood Drive, Beaver Falls? “A. Yes, sir, I have. “MR. GALLOWAY [appellant’s Counsel]: May we approach the bench? (At Side Bar) “MR. GALLOWAY: I’d like to know what the chief is going to testify to. I’d like an offer. “MR. NEISH: He’s going to testify that among his duties he passes this home and that this Defendant was seen there in this home living there and what have you. “MR. GALLOWAY: That’s all? Then I have no objection to that. (In Open Court)” “. . . Q. My question to you is are you familiar with this residence? “A. Yes, sir, I am. “Q. Can you tell us how you became familiar with it? “A. I have answered numerous complaints— “MR. GALLOWAY: If the Court pleases, I object because this goes beyond the scope of the offer and I move for a mistrial. “THE COURT: The motion for mistrial is denied. The objection is sustained. Members of the Jury, you are instructed to disregard the testimony about any complaints. That is not what we are here for and it is not what we are here about. We are instructing you to disregard that answer. “Q. Chief, I want you to tell us just how you familiarized yourself with this residence? “A. I have been to Mr. DeCampli’s house numerous times previous to this incident in regard to other incidents. “MR. GALLOWAY: If the Court please, I.object and I a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. DeCampli

2. “Witnesses should be interrogated by the judge only when he conceives the interest of justice so requires. It is better to permit counsel to bring out the evidence and clear up disputed points on cross-examination unaided by the court . . . . The practice of a judge entering into the trial of a case as an advocate is emphatically disapproved. The judge occupies an exalted and dignified position; he is the one person to whom the jury, with rare exceptions, looks for guidance and from whom litigants expect absolute impartiality. . . . [He] should not, during the trial, indicate an opinion, on the merits, a doubt as to the witnesses’ credibility, or do anything to indicate a leaning to one side or the other, without explaining to the jury that all these matters are for them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 269 Pa. Super. 256 - Commonwealth v. Toombs