290 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Krall’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 307 Pa. Super. 535 - Commonwealth v. Knepp (1982), 449 Pa. Super. 346 - Commonwealth v. Brown (1996)
31 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 Davis v. Alaska · Commonwealth v. Martinolich · Commonwealth v. Slaughter · James E. Conklin v. California · District of Columbia v. Walters
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he thrust of the A.R.D. Program is to enable a defendant, before he has been convicted of a crime, to enter into a program which hopefully will result in his rehabilitation without the necessity of trial and conviction. If the program does not succeed the Commonwealth may then proceed on the charges. In effect, admission into the A.R.D. Program places the criminal proceedings in abeyance, subject to being reactivated under certain conditions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If the evidence is substantial and a witness’s testimony, even if believed did not exonerate the defendant, an error in inquiring about prior criminal activity may be harmless. See United States v. Trowery, 471 F.Supp. 23 (W.D.Pa.1978). In this case, the principal evidence concerning appellant’s guilt was from [one witness], and apart from his testimony it was not overwhelming.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“However, it is yet undecided whether the Commonwealth’s right to show bias of a defense witness is sufficient to overcome the prohibition against inquiry into such matters as a juvenile record or admission into an ARD program.”
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.