Commonwealth v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 1995 · most notably Commonwealth v. Sam (1993), Commonwealth v. Cristina (1978)
59 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 Commonwealth v. Horn · Bentivoglio v. Ralston · Commonwealth v. Palermo · Commonwealth v. Giacobbe · Commonwealth v. Danz
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`[W]hen a potential witness is available to only one of the parties to a trial, and it appears this witness has special information material to the issue, and this person's testimony would not be merely cumulative, then if such party does not produce the testimony of this witness, the jury may draw an inference it would have been unfavorable. See McCormick, Law of Evidence, 534 (1954). See also Bentivoglio v. Ralston, 447 Pa. 24 , 288 A.2d 745 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Wright, 444 Pa. 536 , 282 A.2d 323 (1971).' Commonwealth v. Moore, 453 Pa. 302, 305 , 309 A.2d 569, 570 (1973)." (Emphasis added)”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage““There is no duty on the Commonwealth to call witnesses whose names appear on a bill of indictment or even eye witnesses, if it believes after examination or investigation that their testimony is unreliable, or unworthy of belief, or surplusage or irrelevant. The law in such a case merely requires a District Attorney to notify the Court and defense counsel that he does not intend to call certain persons whose names appear on the bill of indictment as Commonwealth witnesses.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. King
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.