Commonwealth v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 177 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus (1975), Commonwealth v. Banks (1987)
2 federal appellate · 177 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Ewell
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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The former merely requires that the trial court be satisfied that a conviction will not result from a confession or admission when no crime has in fact been committed by anyone. Ultimately the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has in fact been committed.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his rule is rooted in a hesitancy to convict one of crime on the basis of his own statements only. “The grounds on which the rule rests are the hasty and unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no crime has in fact been committed....” Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 134 , 16 A.2d 401, 404 (1940).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have followed Professor Wigmore’s analysis that a crime conceptually consists of three elements: ‘first, the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss . . . ; secondly, somebody’s criminality (in contrast, e. g., to accident) as the source of the loss, — these two together involving the commission of a crime by somebody; and, thirdly, the accused’s identity as the doer of this crime.’ 7 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2072, at 401 (3d ed. 1940) (emphasis removed); see Commonwealth v. May, 451 Pa. 31, 32 , 301 A.2d 368, 369 (1973). Corpus delicti, meaning ‘body of the crime,’ consists of the first two elements. Commonwealth v. May, supra; Commonwealth v. Rhoads, 225 Pa.Super. 208, 213, 310 A.2d 406, 409 (1973). Specifically, ‘ “[t]he corpus delicti [in a murder prosecution] consists of proof that a human being is dead and that such death took place under circumstances which indicate criminal means or the commission of a felonious act.” ’ Commonwealth v. Milliken, 450 Pa. 310, 317 , 300 A.2d 78, 82 (1973), quoting Commonwealth v. Frazier, 411 Pa. 195, 202 , 191 A.2d 369, 373 (1963).” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.