Commonwealth v. Graves’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. .. the better view seems to be that partial memory loss also renders the witness unavailable and the prior testimony as well as the present testimony is admissible. The inconvenience of this narrow view, that forgetfulness is not a ground of unavailability, it seems, should be avoided by treating lapse of memory if complete as a ground of unavailability, or if partial as a ground for admitting both the former and the present testimony of the witness. McCormick, supra, at 6111-12 (emphasis added) (citation omitted), citing Anderson v. Gaither, 120 Fla. 263 , 162 So. 877, 879 (1935) (citing other authority). This approach has the value of fairness to both parties in that necessary testimony is admitted, with the opponent being permitted to cross-examine the witness both as to his asserted lack of memory as well as to his present testimony. This in fact is what happened at trial in the instant case. Therefore, we hold that the trial judge properly admitted Mathis’ prior testimony.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 303 Pa. Super. 534 - Commonwealth v. Smith · 364 Pa. Super. 447 - Commonwealth v. Hook

2. “Whenever any person has been examined as a witness, either for the Commonwealth or for the defense, in any criminal proceeding conducted in or before a court of record, and the defendant has been present and has had an opportunity to examine or cross-examine, if such a witness afterwards dies, or is out of the jurisdiction so that he cannot be effectively served with subpoena, or if he becomes incompetent to testify for any legally sufficient reason properly proven, notes of his examination shall be competent evidence upon a subsequent trial of the same criminal issue.... (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 303 Pa. Super. 534 - Commonwealth v. Smith