245 Pa. Super. 103 - Commonwealth v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
February 1988
most recently cited
25 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Haas v. Kasnot · Commonwealth v. Turner · Commonwealth v. Jones · Commonwealth v. Smith · 227 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Smith
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The selection of a remedy for the violation of a sequestration order is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 440 Pa. 150, 153 , 269 A.2d 722, 723 (1970); Commonwealth v. Turner, 389 Pa. 239, 264 , 133 A.2d 187, 199 (1957). In exercising its discretion, the trial court should consider the seriousness of the violation, its impact on the testimony of the witness, and its probable impact on the outcome of the trial. We will disturb the trial court's exercise of its discretion only if there is no reasonable ground for the action taken. Commonwealth v. Smith, 464 Pa. 314, 320-1 , 346 A.2d 757, 760 (1975). Additionally, we have stated the trial court should consider whether the witness intentionally disobeyed the order so that he might determine what the others will testify to, and whether the party calling the witness procured his disobedience. Commonwealth v. Smith, 227 Pa.Super. 355, 372 , 324 A.2d 483, 492 (1974). See also, Commonwealth v. Gibson, 245 Pa.Super. 103 , 369 A.2d 314 (1976).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The criteria for determining when an inference can properly be drawn from the failure of a party to call a witness are well-settled. ‘Where evidence which would properly be part of a case is within the control of the party whose interest it would naturally be to produce it, and, without satisfactory explanation he fails to do so, the jury may draw an inference that it would be unfavorable to him.’ Wills v. Hardcastle, 19 Pa.Super. 525, 529 (1902); Green v. Brooks, 215 Pa. 492, 496 , 64 A. 672 (1906); Haas v. Kasnot, 371 Pa. 580, 584, 585 , 92 A.2d 171 (1952).”
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.