318 Pa. Super. 470 - Commonwealth v. Fulton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “A prosecuting attorney may properly respond to opposing counsel’s argument which questions the credibility of a witness. The Commonwealth may properly refer to the fact that the incriminating evidence was uncontradicted. Such will not necessarily be deemed to a reference to a defendant’s failure to testify. Commonwealth v. Kjers-gaard, 276 Pa.Superior Ct. 368, 375, 419 A.2d 502, 506 (1980). Commonwealth v. Ashmore, 266 Pa.Superior Ct. 181, 189, 403 A.2d 603, 606 (1979); and Commonwealth v. Kloch, 230 Pa.Superior Ct. 563, 589, 327 A.2d 375, 390 (1974).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 365 Pa. Super. 28 - Commonwealth v. Kelly

2. “It is for the trial judge to determine whether a witness is competent to testify. Such decision will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of the court’s discretion. Moreover, the trial court need not order an investigation of a witnesses’ competency unless he or she has some doubt of such after having observed the witness. As to witnesses who are suspected of suffering with mental illness, his or her testimony is still competent unless he or she is unable to give a correct account of the matters at issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 72 - Turner v. Valley Housing Development Corp.

3. ““We perceive this issue to require a four-part analysis of the record: (1) was there a ‘deal;’ (2) was defense counsel aware of the deal, and, if he was not, was the record of such nature that counsel should have been aware of the deal; (3) could counsel, on cross-examination, have pursued the ‘deal;’ and (4) as is most critical in cases of this nature, was defense counsel’s cross-examina tion deficient when tested by Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, supra.” 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 329 Pa. Super. 179 - Commonwealth v. Presbury