252 Pa. Super. 435 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 1995 · most notably Commonwealth v. Miller (1995), 261 Pa. Super. 92 - Commonwealth v. Moore (1978)
28 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Commonwealth v. Fortune · Commonwealth v. Roscioli · Commonwealth v. Haideman
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Reading Greco, Maloney, Hinds, and Mitchell together, we believe that our appellate courts have found any reference to an accused's silence after arrest to be reversible error unless the trial court gives a prompt and adequate cautionary instruction." 252 Pa.Super. at 446 , 381 A.2d at 1291 (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The law is clear. It is reversible error to admit evidence of a defendant’s silence at the time of his arrest. Commonwealth v. Stafford, 450 Pa. 252 , 299 A.2d 590 (1973); Commonwealth v. Haideman, 449 Pa. 367 , 296 A.2d 765 (1972). The prohibition of any reference to an accused’s silence reflects the court’s desire that an accused not be penalized for exercising his constitutional rights. Commonwealth v. Stafford, supra; Commonwealth v. Haideman, supra; Miranda v. Arizona, [supra]. It is a recognition that most lay persons would view an assertion of the constitutional privilege as an admission of guilt. Commonwealth v. Haideman, 449 Pa. at 371 , 296 A.2d at 767 , citing Walker v. United States, 404 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir. 1968).” 465 Pa. at 403, 350 A.2d at 828. (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Q. What did you do having met Mr. Williams? A. I asked him for his personal identification, name, address, date of birth, inquired as to how he came into possession of a vehicle that he was operating, that of Mr. Rigney's [the victim]. Q. Did he tell you how he came in possession of it? A. He said that on the date prior to that, the 16th, he had found the car parked along a street with the keys in it and took it for a ride. Q. Then what happened? A. After that he elected to remain silent.”
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.