414 Pa. Super. 502 - Commonwealth v. Ulen’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2009
6 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 Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. Bagley · Griffin v. California · Hernandez v. New York
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a party has failed to comply with Rule 305, the trial court has broad discretion in choosing an appropriate remedy.” Commonwealth v. Palmer, 319 Pa.Super. 56, 58 , 465 A.2d 1050, 1052 (1983). See also: Commonwealth v. Cannady, 404 Pa.Super. 215, 221 , 590 A.2d 356, 359 (1991); Commonwealth v. Feflie, 398 Pa.Super. 622, 635 , 581 A.2d 636, 643 (1990). In this regard, Pa.R.Crim.P. 305 E states: If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule, the court may order such party to permit discovery or inspection, may grant a continuance, or may prohibit such party from introducing evidence not disclosed, other than testimony of the defendant, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. In Commonwealth v. Johnson, 310 Pa.Super. 385 , 456 A.2d 988 (1983), the Superior Court said: Pa.R.Crim.P. 305 E gives the trial court broad discretion in formulating remedies for a failure to comply with discovery requirements. In many cases, ordering a continuance will be an adequate remedy. This will be so where the undisclosed statement or other evidence is admissible and the defendant’s only prejudice is surprise. E.g., Commonwealth v. Parente, 294 Pa.Superior Ct. 446, 440 A.2d 549 (1982); Commonwealth v. Bey, 294 Pa.Superior Ct. 229, 439 A.2d 1175 (1982). Sometimes, however, the prejudice will go beyond surprise; if the prejudice is so great that the fairness of th”
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.