Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Commonwealth v. Robson (1975), Commonwealth v. Brown (1975)
82 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Jencks v. United States · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Commonwealth v. Futch · Commonwealth v. Garvin
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant also urges other trial errors, most importantly failure to allow inspection of certain pretrial statements of one of the witnesses. But appellant was not entitled to pretrial discovery of the statements. Pa.R.Crim.P. 310. Appellant’s counsel would have been entitled to inspect the statements after the direct examination of the witness was completed in order to prepare his cross-examination. Commonwealth v. Kantos, 442 Pa. 343, 347-49 , 276 A.2d 830, 832-33 (1971); see Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 , 77 S.Ct. 1007 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957); Commonwealth v. Smith, 417 Pa. 321 , 208 A.2d 219 (1965); ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Discovery and Procedure Before Trial § 2.-1(a) (i) (1970). However, appellant failed to request production of the statements at any point in the trial. In the absence of a request, there was no error in the failure to produce the statements, (emphasis added) Commonwealth v. Johnson, 457 Pa. 554, 560-561 , 327 A.2d 632, 636 (1974).”
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.