313 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Calloway’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Vandivner (2009), 381 Pa. Super. 354 - Commonwealth v. Meadows (1989)
36 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 Brady v. United States · Santobello v. New York · Blackledge v. Allison · Commonwealth v. Eiland · United States v. Robertson
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... first, whether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion, and second, whether the accused's expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]here are myriad possible explanations underlying his [the accused's] motivation to provide `information' for a `deal' [to a district attorney].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Rule 410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements Except as otherwise provided in this rule evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions: (1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn; (2) a plea of nolo contendere; (3) any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the foregoing pleas; (4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. However, such a statement is admissible (i) in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it, or (ii) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record and in the presence of counsel.”
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.