288 Pa. Super. 310 - Commonwealth v. Schuster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Commonwealth has the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, of showing it has met the requirements of Rule 1100(c). Cf. Commonwealth v. Wade, 475 Pa. 399 , 380 A.2d 782 (1977); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553 , 372 A.2d 826 (1977). Furthermore, in reviewing a hearing court’s ruling that the Commonwealth has met its burden, we consider only the evidence presented by the Commonwealth and so much evidence, as fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. See Commonwealth v. Mitchell, supra. Commonwealth v. Ehredt, supra 485 Pa. 191 at 194 , 401 A.2d 358 at 360 . [ 485 Pa. 191 , 401 A.2d 358 (1979) ] Commonwealth v. Freeman, 280 Pa.Super. 462 , 421 A.2d 814, 817 (1980). We also note that while it is clear that the unavailability of a Commonwealth witness is a relevant factor in determining whether an extension should be granted, see Commonwealth v. Brown, 252 Pa.Super. 365 , 381 A.2d 961 (1977), it is just as clear that bare statements by the Commonwealth’s attorney of witness unavailability, without more, do not establish due diligence within the standards outlined in Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(c). See Commonwealth v. Ehredt, 485 Pa. 191 , 401 A.2d 358 (1979); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 269 Pa.Super. 249 , 409 A.2d 873 (1979).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 302 Pa. Super. 50 - Commonwealth v. Gilliam

2. “[U]nless the unavailable witness is one whose testimony is clearly unnecessary or patently cumulative the determination of whether the witness is important to the Commonwealth’s case should be left to the exercise of prose-cutorial discretion. This standard provides due recognition to the prosecution’s responsibility in determining which witnesses are important to most effectively present the Commonwealth’s case while insuring that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not thwarted by claims of unavailability of unnecessary witnesses. Moreover, we do not believe that an extension or dismissal hearing should evolve into an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of the evidence which the Commonwealth intends to introduce at trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 343 Pa. Super. 514 - Commonwealth v. Stewart