Commonwealth v. Dutton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

93 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Examining Futch in this light, I can only conclude that its purpose will be fully realized by a solely prospective application. “The Futch exclusionary rule contributes nothing to the certainty of the judicial factfinding process. As Mr. Justice Eagen pointed out in his concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Tingle, 451 Pa. 241 , 301 A.2d 701 (1973), the rule is directed entirely to police conduct prior to trial and operates irrespective of the reliability or probative value of ,the evidence excluded. One may hope that the threat of exclusion will help to deter dilatory or illegal police conduct, but it can hardly be supposed that application of the exclusionary rule to events long past will add anything to the rule’s deterrent force for the future. On the other hand, the Court’s opinion may have grave repercussions on the administration of justice. No one knows how many prosecutions have been instituted since January 1, 1965 in reliance on our pre-Futch rules of admissibility, but there must have been a great many. Now, it appears, any defendant convicted on the basis of evidence which under Futch should be excluded is entitled to a new trial, regardless of the fairness of his original trial. I see nothing to be gained from saddling our judicial system with this potentially staggering burden.” 453 Pa. at 552-53, 307 A.2d at 241 (footnote omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Dobson · Commonwealth v. Mitchell

2. ““Rule 118. Proceedings Initiated by Arrest Without Warrant When a defendant has been arrested without a warrant, he shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the proper issuing authority where a complaint shall be filed against him. (a) If the complaint charges a court case, the defendant shall be given an immediate preliminary arraignment. (b) If the complaint charges a summary offense, the defendant shall be given an immediate trial or upon his request, the defendant shall be given the opportunity of posting security for his appearance at trial on a date which shall be not less than three nor more than ten days after his appearance, unless extended for cause shown, or unless the issuing authority fixes an earlier date upon request of the defendant or his attorney with the consent of the police officer.” Adopted January 31, 1970. Effective May 1, 1970. Effective January 1, 1974, Pa.R.Crim.P. 118 was renumbered in pertinent part as Pa.R.Crim.P. 130.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Saunders

3. ““It is true appellant denied involvement in the incident until informed of the witness’s accusation, however, the fact that the accusation may have combined with the unnecessary delay to induce appellant’s confession does not mean the confession is inadmissible (sic) We did not say in Futch that the unnecessary delay must be the sole cause of the confession for the confession to be inadmissible. We said that all evidence obtained during an unnecessary delay, except that which has no reasonable relationship to the delay whatsoever should be excluded . The fact that the confession may have also been related to other events which occurred during the delay does not eliminate its relationship with the delay.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Smith