Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 295 Pa. Super. 369 - Commonwealth v. Williams

295 Pa. Super. 369 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
June 1987
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · California v. Arizona · Perini v. Downey · Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus

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

  1. “Our system of jurisprudence not only relies but rests upon the notion that the scales of justice are evenly balanced and each party, not only the defendant but also the Commonwealth, must be afforded an equal opportunity to tip the scales. It, therefore, follows that the Commonwealth is entitled to a full measure of oral advocacy and the prosecutor has not only the privilege but the duty to exert his skills as an advocate in such manner as he deems the most likely to be persuasive. There is no sound reason why counsel for the Commonwealth should be expected to show any less fervor than counsel for the defendant during any portion of the trial, including the closing remarks, provided, of course, the statements do not fall afoul of the ABA Prosecution Standards. ... [Ojnly such remarks as clearly and obviously violate the ABA Prosecution Standards may be determined to be improper.”
    3 later decisions 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.