380 Pa. Super. 555 - Commonwealth v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Dunkle (1992), 2005 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Hunzer (2005)
55 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 Gilbert v. California · Rodriguez v. New York · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Devers · Rosche v. McCoy
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]rior consistent statements may be admitted to corroborate or rehabilitate the testimony of a witness who has been impeached, expressly or impliedly, as having a faulty memory, or as having been induced to fabricate the testimony by improper motive or influence. Admission of prior consistent statements on such grounds is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court, to be decided in light of the character and degree of impeachment. It is not necessary that the impeachment be direct; it may be implied, inferred, or insinuated either by cross-examination, presentation of conflicting evidence, or a combination of the two.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The record in this case reveals three objections during Assistant Attorney Delaney’s testimony. Two involved the mere utterance of the word ‘objection’ without any grounds stated for the objection. The remaining objection was stated as follows: “Q. Did she testify to the court consistently with what she had told you earlier that day? “Mr. Goldman: Objection. Are you trying to put in inconsistent statements or consistent? This is really getting beyond what I feel the prosecution is allowed to do, Your Honor. “The Court: No. He can ask him if what she said was substantially consistent with what she said outside the courtroom. I see no problem with that. I will permit that.” Commonwealth v. Willis, supra at 571-72, 552 A.2d at 690 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Rule 3.7. Lawyer as Witness. — (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. (b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 [Conflict of Interest: General Rule] or Rule 1.9 [Conflict of Interest: Former Client].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Smith
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.