Commonwealth v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal (1998), Commonwealth v. Burke (2001)
2 federal appellate · 54 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ... In all court cases, on request by the defendant, and subject to any protective order which the Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant’s attorney all of the following requested items or information, provided they are material to the instant case. The Commonwealth shall, when applicable, permit the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy or photograph such items. (a) Any evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment, and which is within the possession or control of the attorney for the Commonwealth;”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider any adverse effect that the prosecutor's failure to disclose might have had on not only the presentation of the defense at trial, but the preparation of the defense as well”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the case before us, Moose never made a request for the criminal records of any government witnesses, nor did he request information about any promises, inducements, rewards or agreements between the witnesses and the Commonwealth. However, Moose’s failure to seek such information is directly traceable to the failure of the district attorney in this case ... to identify Oglesby. Had the Commonwealth provided the appellee with Oglesby’s name, Moose would then have had the opportunity to seek further information about Oglesby. Thus, in the case before us, the failure of the Commonwealth to disclose the identity of Oglesby as a witness impermissibly interfered with the [sic] Moose’s ability to seek information concerning Ogles-by’s understanding with the Commonwealth.”
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.