413 Pa. Super. 203 - Commonwealth v. Culmer’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 1999
most recently cited
34 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Davis · Commonwealth v. Hudson · Commonwealth v. Smith · Commonwealth v. Evans
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, defense counsel must be permitted to cross-examine a Commonwealth witness on possible favorable treatment or expectations of such favorable treatment in exchange for testimony for the prosecution. Failure to allow cross-examination to reveal possible bias of this nature is error and will require a new trial unless the error can be shown to have had no impact on the outcome of the case. See Commonwealth v. Evans, 511 Pa. 214 , 512 A.2d 626 (1986); Commonwealth v. Jennings, 405 Pa.Super. 590 , 592 A.2d 1370 (1991); Commonwealth v. Blassingale, 391 Pa.Super. 395 , 571 A.2d 426 (1990). The principle upon which this rule is premised is that the jury should have the opportunity to consider information concerning possible ulterior motives on the part of the witness in order accurately to assess the witness’ credibility.”
3 later decisions 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.