383 Pa. Super. 297 - Commonwealth v. Gibbons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Emge, the Commonwealth's psychologist, Dr. Anthony Mannarino, testified as to "[w]hether the changes in the child's behavior in this case were `consistent with, generally speaking, a victim of child sexual abuse....'" Id., 381 Pa.Superior Ct. at 143, 553 A.2d at 76. The panel concluded that testimony "which matches up the behavior of known victims of child sexual abuse with that of an alleged victim can serve no purpose other than to bolster the credibility of the alleged victim, and this purpose is patently prohibited." Id., citing, Commonwealth v. Rounds, 518 Pa. 204, 207, n. 4 , 542 A.2d 997, 999, n. 4 (1988); Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77 , 541 A.2d 315 (1988); Commonwealth v. Seese, 512 Pa. 439 , 517 A.2d 920 (1986). The Commonwealth argues strenuously that Dr. Kane's testimony was necessary because "[t]he [appellant's] entire case rested on alleged inconsistencies with the victim's behavior and words, and without the expert testimony proffered by Dr. Kane, the jury would have had no idea whether these were truly inconsistencies indicating the victim was a liar or whether ... the victim's actions and words were representative of a mechanism of coping...." Appellee's Brief at 8. We note that in the instant case, as opposed to what occurred in Commonwealth v. Emge, the psychologist did not testify that the accusing child's behavior matched the behavior of known victims of child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, we can only conclude that the probative value of Dr. Kane's t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 403 Pa. Super. 342 - Commonwealth v. Purcell

2. “[t]he [appellant's] entire case rested on alleged inconsistencies with the victim's behavior and words, and without the expert testimony proffered by Dr. Kane, the jury would have had no idea whether these were truly inconsistencies indicating the victim was a liar or whether ... the victim's actions and words were representative of a mechanism of coping....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 403 Pa. Super. 342 - Commonwealth v. Purcell

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

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 403 Pa. Super. 342 - Commonwealth v. Purcell