319 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. York’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 364 Pa. Super. 521 - Commonwealth v. Gordon (1987), 334 Pa. Super. 374 - Commonwealth v. Miller (1984)
30 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Moore v. Illinois · United States v. Augenblick · United States v. Harrison · United States v. Harris
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant matter while we cannot approve the procedure by [the officer] which erased her recorded impressions, we do not agree that the action taken by the lower court was appropriate. Appellee’s right or opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not so severely affected by the absence of the tapes as to warrant the harsh sanction of the witnesses’ suppression. Appellee still has the chance to fully cross-examine the witness regarding her recollections of the events giving rise to the arrest. Appellee can scrutinize [the officer’s] official report in any aspect, as to its contents and compilation, and explore the effect of the destruction of the tapes on the witnesses’ credibility. The credibility of a witness is within the sole province of the finder of fact____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“As a panel of this Court recently explained: n order for the destruction of [a police officer’s] notes to be a violation meriting a mistrial, proof is required of the following: suppression of evidence by the prosecution after a request by the defense, the favorable character of the evidence for the defense; and the materiality of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the instant matter there is no evidence that the prosecutor suppressed or destroyed the tapes. On the contrary, testimony from the suppression hearing reveals that [the officer] obliterated the tapes by using them for further recording.”
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.