356 Pa. Super. 302 - Commonwealth v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. The witness is so hostile or prejudiced against the party expected to call him that there is a small possibility of obtaining unbiased truth; 2. The testimony of such a witness is comparatively unimportant, cumulative, or inferior to that already presented; 3. The uncalled witness is equally available to both parties; 4. There is a satisfactory explanation as to why the party failed to call such a witness; 5. The witness is not available or not within the control of the party against whom the negative inference is desired; and, 6. The testimony of the uncalled witness is not within the scope of the natural interest of the party failing to produce him.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 444 Pa. Super. 545 - Commonwealth v. Evans · 416 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Sanchez

2. “Generally, when a potential witness is available to only one of the parties to a trial, and it appears this witness has special information material to the issue, and this person’s testimony would not be merely cumulative, then if such party does not produce the testimony of this witness, the jury may draw an inference it would have been unfavorable. See McCormick, Law of Evidence, 534 (1954). See also: Bentivoglio v. Ralston, 447 Pa. 24 , 288 A.2d 745 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Wright, 444 Pa. 536 , 282 A.2d 323 (1971).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 416 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Sanchez