Commonwealth v. Pana’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant’s ability to use an interpreter encompasses numerous fundamental rights. The failure to understand the proceedings may deny him his right to confront witnesses against him, his right to consult with his attorney, or his right to be present at his own trial. See United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir.1970); United States ex rel. Navarro v. Johnson, 365 F.Supp. 676 , 681 n. 3 (E.D.Pa.1973); see generally Annotation, Right of Accused to Have Evidence or Court Proceedings Interpreted (hereinafter “Annotation”), 36 A.L.R.3d 276 (1971). The use of an interpreter may also be necessary to protect appellant’s right to testify in his own behalf. See United States v. Carrion, 488 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 907 , 94 S.Ct. 1613 , 40 L.Ed.2d 112 (1974). As the Court of Appeals stated in Carrion : “If the defendant takes the stand in his own behalf, but has an imperfect command of English, there exists the ... danger that he will either misunderstand crucial questions or that the jury will misconstrue crucial responses.” 488 F.2d at 14 . The decision to use an interpreter rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See United States v. Carrion, supra; United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, supra; Annotation § 7, 36 A.L.R.2d at 293 (1971). This is necessary because numerous factors such as the complexity of issues and testimony and the language ability of defendant must be taken into consideration. United Stat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 433 Pa. Super. 518 - Commonwealth v. Wallace

2. “A defendant's ability to use a translator encompasses numerous fundamental rights. The failure to understand the proceedings may deny him his right to confront witnesses against him, his right to consult with his attorney, or his right to be present at his own trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Com. of Pa. v. Diaz

3. “[T]he court's refusal to permit the use of the interpreter denied appellant his right to testify effectively in his own behalf and was prejudicial error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Com. of Pa. v. Diaz