381 Pa. Super. 139 - Commonwealth v. Emge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he dynamics of child sexual abuse in terms of consistent patterns of behavior by children generally was never an issue in this case; Whether the changes in the child’s behavior in this case were “consistent with, generally speaking, a victim of child sexual abuse” would have little probative value, on the issue of whether Robert Emge, Sr. did, in fact, commit the specific offenses for which he was charged.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 403 Pa. Super. 342 - Commonwealth v. Purcell · 384 Pa. Super. 619 - Commonwealth v. Higby

2. “testimony which matches up the behavior of known victims of child sexual abuse with that of an alleged victim can serve no other purpose than to bolster the credibility of the alleged victim, and this purpose is patently prohibited.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 385 Pa. Super. 38 - Commonwealth v. McIlvaine · 403 Pa. Super. 342 - Commonwealth v. Purcell

3. “The crux of the testimony appears to be that the victim’s failure to identify the appellant two weeks after the rape is unremarkable, as she was in the acute phase of RTS [Rape Trauma Syndrome] in which a victim has difficulty performing even normal functions, and the in-court identification five years later is particularly credible, as it results from a flashback, with the mind operating like a computer. It is clear that the only purpose of the expert testimony was to enhance the credibility of the victim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 384 Pa. Super. 619 - Commonwealth v. Higby