Commonwealth v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Commonwealth v. Pursell (1985), Commonwealth v. LaCava (1995)
78 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. Williams · Commonwealth v. Clark · Commonwealth v. Povish · Saunders v. Commonwealth
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a criminal case, the possible prejudicial effect of a witness’s reference to prior criminal conduct of the defendant may, under certain circumstances, be removed by an immediate cautionary instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Povish, 479 Pa. 179 , 387 A.2d 1282 (1978). In Commonwealth v. Williams, supra [ 470 Pa. 172 ] at 178, 368 A.2d [249] at 252 [(1977)], this Court stated: [W]e have never ascribed to the view that all improper references to prior criminal activities necessarily require the award of a new trial as the only effective remedy. Our decisions have indicated that there are situations where the taint, resulting from an improper reference to an unrelated criminal act, may be expunged without resort to the extreme remedy of aborting an otherwise fair trial____ The nature of the reference and whether the remark was intentionally elicited by the Commonwealth are considerations relevant to the determination of whether a mistrial is required. Id. at n. 4.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“BY MR. KING [the prosecutor]: Q. Mr. Richardson, before June 2nd, 1978, when was the last time you were inside of your Uncle Norman’s house? (Brief pause) A. I’d say about ... THE COURT: What’s the answer? THE WITNESS: I’d say January. BY MR. KING: Q. When was the last time your brother, Eugene, was in your Uncle Norman’s house before June the 2nd, 1978? MR. MERRIWEATHER: Objection. THE COURT: If you know. Overruled. Do you know when was the last time he was there? THE WITNESS: It was when he burglarized it. MR. MERRIWEATHER: Your Honor, may we see you at side bar, please.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether the exposure of the jury to improper evidence can be cured by an instruction depends upon a consideration of all the circumstances.”
1 later decision 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.