413 Pa. Super. 599 - Commonwealth v. Wall’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Shaffer v. Smith (1996), State v. Provost (1999)
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 Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas · United States v. Nixon
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.
“[t]he trial court must determine (1) if the evidence sought to be admitted is relevant to the accused's defense, (2) whether the evidence sought to be admitted is merely cumulative of evidence otherwise admissible at trial, and (3) whether the evidence which the accused wishes to introduce at trial is more probative than prejudicial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he proffer ... established that the victim participated in the successful prosecution of her former abuser, and that participation [in that prosecution] ultimately lead to her removal from her mother’s house. From this, the jury could have inferred that the victim had, at the time she alleged that appellant had sexually abused her, labored under the impression that the making of another sexual abuse claim could result in her removal from her aunt and uncle’s house. The victim’s peculiar knowledge of the content and of the potential consequences of a sexual abuse claim was thus relevant to establish why the victim might have chosen to fabricate a specific type of claim, one of sexual abuse against an adult male in the house in which she lived and wanted to leave. Given the timing of the victim’s allegations of sexual abuse, i.e. immediately after a violent argument with her aunt which was prompted in part by the victim’s unsuccessful attempt to seek police protection from her aunt’s discipline, we conclude that the excluded evidence showing why the victim might have fabricated a claim of sexual abuse against her uncle, was relevant to appellant’s defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“‘“The Rape Shield Law is not meant to prevent the admission of evidence that goes to bias or motive for testifying against the defendant when it might be exculpatory as to the defendant and establish a motive for the victim to color her[/ his] testimony_’ The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution ‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ This right is secured for defendants in state as well as federal criminal proceedings_’ Specifically, ‘[an] attack on the witness’ credibility is effected by means of cross-examination directed toward revealing possible biases, prejudice or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate directly to issues or personalities in the case at hand....’ ” We have recognized that the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important junction of the constitutionally protected right of cross examination.”
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.