Commonwealth v. Drumgold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 51 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right to present a defense, including the right to call witnesses to testify on his behalf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). Commonwealth v. Durning, 406 Mass. 485, 495 , 548 N.E.2d 1242 (1990). Accord Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-409 , 108 S.Ct. 646, 654 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 ([1988]). `However, the right to call witnesses is not absolute; in the face of "legitimate demands of the adversarial system," this right may be tempered according to the discretion of the trial judge.' Commonwealth v. Durning, supra at 495, 548 N.E.2d 1242 , quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171-72 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). If a judge exercises his or her discretion to limit the defendant's right to call witnesses, the restriction cannot be arbitrary. See Washington v. Texas, supra at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 1925 .... "One of the limitations on a defendant's right to call a witness includes the witness's proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Commonwealth v. Francis, 375 Mass. 211, 214-215 , 375 N.E.2d 1221 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 872 , 99 S.Ct. 205 , 58 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). ". . . . "`... The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth.' United States v.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 820 So. 2d 842 - Johnson v. State

2. “One of the limitations on a defendant's right to call a witness includes the witness's proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Commonwealth v. Francis, 375 Mass. 211, 214-215 , 375 N.E.2d 1221 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 872 , 99 S.Ct. 205 , 58 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). ". . . . "`... The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth.' United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). `Reaching the truth is a fundamental goal of trials, and cross-examination is critical to the process.' United States v. Esparsen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1469 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1036 , 112 S.Ct. 882 , 116 L.Ed.2d 786 (1992). It follows that although a defendant has a right to present witnesses in his defense, that right `does not carry with it the right to immunize the witness from reasonable and appropriate cross-examination.' Lawson v. Murray, 837 F.2d 653, 655 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 820 So. 2d 842 - Johnson v. State

3. ““ ‘The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to present a defense, including the right to call witnesses to testify on his behalf. Washington v. Texas, 888 U.S. 14 , 19 (1967). Commonwealth v. Burning, 406 Mass. 485, 495 , 548 N.E.2d 1242 (1990). Accord Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-409 ( [1988]). “However, the right to call witnesses is not absolute; in the face of ‘legitimate demands of the adversarial system,’ this right may be tempered according to the discretion of the trial judge.” Commonwealth v. Burning, supra at 495, quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 (1975). If a judge exercises his or her discretion to limit the defendant’s right to call witnesses, the restriction cannot be arbitrary. See Washington v. Texas, supra at 23....’””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woodward v. State