294 Pa. Super. 171 - Commonwealth v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably State v. Johnston (1988), 31 Cal. 3d 18 - People v. Shirley (1982)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 State v. Hurd · Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch · State v. McQueen · State v. Mena · Creamer v. State
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear that the victim was able to positively identify both of her assailants prior to the hypnotic session. Therefore, with respect to the victim’s ability to identify her two assailants, the hypnotic session did not, in fact, refresh her memory and the dangers of unreliable suggestion, fantasy and confabulation are not at issue. With respect to what happened to the victim after she was raped, during the period in which she lapsed in and out of consciousness, our review of the entire trial transcript, suppression hearing transcript and transcript of the hypnotic session itself confirms that the prosecution deliberately did not attempt to utilize any testimony of the victim which conceivably surfaced for the first time as a result of the hypnotic session____ Therefore, the victim’s testimony was not rendered incompetent by the hypnotic session due to the fact that she did have prior recollection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the Supreme Court did not approve any procedural safeguards which would insure the reliability and neutrality of memory refreshed by hypnosis .... The Supreme Court has, in effect, adopted a pro se rule of inadmissibility concerning hypnotically-refreshed testimony until the court is presented with more scientifically conclusive evidence that such testimony is reliable, to the same extent as testimony which is refreshed by reviewing a written document.”
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.