376 Pa. Super. 623 - Commonwealth v. Anthony’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2003
21 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 Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Florida · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Baldwin v. New York Williams
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that a defendant who intends to present a defense of alibi must file a notice of intention to claim the defense. Pa.R.Crim.P. [573(c)(1)(a) ]. 4 The notice must specify the place or places where defendant claims to have been at the time the offense was committed as well as the names and addresses of witnesses who will testify to support the defense. Id. The purpose of the Rule is to insure “both the defendant and the State ample opportunity to investigate certain facts crucial to the determination of guilt or innocence.” Commonwealth v. Fernandez, 333 Pa.Super. 279, 289 , 482 A.2d 567, 572 (1984) (quoting Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 82 , 90 S.Ct. 1893, 1896 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970)). Rule [573] further provides that If the defendant fails to file and serve notice of alibi defense.. .the court at trial may exclude entirely any evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of proving the defense, except testimony by the defendant, or may grant a continuance to enable the Commonwealth to investigate such evidence, or may make such other order as the interests of justice require. Id. at [573(c)(1)(d) ].”
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.