278 Pa. Super. 519 - Commonwealth v. Whiting’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In deciding which conflicting testimony to believe, you should not necessarily be swayed by the number of witnesses on each side. You may find that the testimony of a few witnesses — just one witness — is more believable than the opposing testimony of a greater number of witnesses. On the other hand, you should also consider the extent to which conflicting testimony is supported by other evidence. You should evaluate the testimony of [the complainant] Ida Williams with special care, in view of Ida Williams’ emotional involvement and the difficulty of determining the truth with respect to the crime charged, which is one that is usually carried out in private. You can determine for yourselves what her appearance was. I cannot influence you. I can say that I thought she was a very direct witness who stood up extremely well under circumstances that must have been extremely distressing and painful to her. Now, before you find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in this case, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the act charged did, in fact, occur and it occurred without Ida Williams consent. One of the factors to be considered in a case of this kind is as to whether a complaint was promptly made to the police. I would say, from the facts as I have heard them, Ida Williams proceeded with all commendable and due haste to immediately go to her daughter for assistance and immediately report what had occurred to her, immediately to the police. Ida Williams testifi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Whiting

2. “4.7 Summary of and comment on evidence. (a) The court, at the time it instructs the jury, may summarize and comment on the evidence, provided the jury is clearly and unequivocally instructed that it is the exclusive judge of the facts, that it is to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, and that it is not bound by the comments of the court. (b) The summary and comment permitted in subsection (a) is governed by the following principles: (i) The court may analyze the evidence, draw the attention of the jury to important portions of the evidence, and fairly and accurately summarize the contentions of both the prosecution and the defense. (ii) The court may not suggest a verdict of guilty or not guilty, nor may the court directly express an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. (iii) The court may not present any item of evidence as a proven or undisputed fact unless the matter has been affirmatively conceded or is the subject of judicial notice. (iv) The court may state the law and comment on matters in evidence bearing on the credibility of any witness, but may not directly express an opinion that certain testimony is worthy or unworthy of belief.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 290 Pa. Super. 86 - Commonwealth v. Emmi