Commonwealth v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 46 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is hornbook evidentiary law that a witness may be impeached by showing that, on a prior occasion, he or she engaged in conduct inconsistent with testimony given at trial. See 3A Wigmore, Evidence, § 1042 (Chadbourne rev. 1970). See also Commonwealth v. Turner, 499 Pa. 579, 583 , 454 A.2d 537 (1982). A corollary to this rule is that [i]f a witness had been under a duty to speak on a prior occasion, or if it would have been natural for the witness to have spoken on such an occasion, but the witness remained silent, the witness may be impeached by showing that the present testimony included a fact as to which he had been silent on a prior occasion. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 436 (14th ed. 1986) (emphasis added).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Ragan · 392 Pa. Super. 170 - Commonwealth v. Akers

2. “In such cases the question of the sincerity of the complaint is raised if it is established that the delay under all of the factors present was either unreasonable or unexplained, .... The, the inference of insincerity is ... justified where the facts of the case fail to disclose a reasonable explanation for the challenged time lapse prior to the complaint.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Dunkle · In Re Whittaker

3. ““[Defense Counsel] Q: It is my recollection of what you said, that you indicated that you may very well be affected by the length of time between the alleged offense and the date when it was reported, is that correct? “A: That’s correct, that part, yes. “[Defense Counsel] Q: I thought you also indicated that you felt that you would be able to listen to the evidence and decide the case based on evidence. “A: Just based on the evidence, right; but still, like I say, the evidence I can go 100 percent with the evidence, if [sic] just the point that there was such an elapsed time that we should really — that would really be the point that I felt would just not make a— “[Defense Counsel] Q: Let me ask you this— “A: That may still have some of the doubt in my mind. “[Defense Counsel] Q: About what, sir? “A: the facts were all reported to me, and to the jurors, then you know that would be it. Then, I would go strictly on them facts; it’s just the point that to me it seems impossible that they should wait so long when they have a child at that age. “[Defense Counsel] Q: Are you saying that you would listen to the evidence? “A: I would listen to the evidence, right. “[Attorney for Commonwealth] Q: When you first answered this line of questioning, is it not true that you said you didn’t think you could be a fair juror? “A: Yes . . . but just like I say, it’s — it seems almost impossible that someone would wait that long to, you know, to me it’s — but, like I say, I would weigh the facts”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cooper v. Franko