Commonwealth v. Borders’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
October 1999
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Commonwealth v. Slaughter · Commonwealth v. Evans · 359 Pa. Super. 606 - Seals v. TIOGA CTY. GRANGE MUT. INS. · Commonwealth v. Simmon
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his court has consistently held that the failure to allow a criminal defendant to use a prosecution witness’ prior criminal record to establish a possible motive for giving unfavorable testimony against him violates that defendant’s right to full confrontation of that witness as provided by the Sixth Amendment of the federal constitution, Commonwealth v. Slaughter, [ 482 Pa. 538 , 394 A.2d 453 (1978) ]; Commonwealth v. Evans, [ 511 Pa. 214 , 512 A.2d 626 (1986)]; Commonwealth v. Grace Simmon, [521] Pa. [218,] 555 A.2d 860 (1989). These holdings are consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), interpreting the Confrontation Clause in terms of the use of a juvenile record for purposes of showing the motive or bias of a key prosecution witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the victim, as accuser, must be subject to the utmost scrutiny if his [or her] accusations are to fairly form the basis of the criminal prosecution at hand. The strength or weakness derived from an attempt to show that the victim has some ulterior motive for continuing his [or her] role as an accuser due to subsequent acts, bringing him into the sphere of the influence by the prosecutor, must rightly be determined by the jury, which, after hearing all the evidence in the matter before them, will be most able to ferret out the presence or absence of improper motive on the part of the victim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.