Commonwealth v. Cull’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2010
3 federal appellate · 12 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 Bruton v. United States · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Dutton v. Evans
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Appellant and Edmundson] conspired to commit criminal homicide. The statements [Appellant] sought to admit are statements [Edmundson] made to the police after she and [Appellant] completed the conspiracy. Therefore, [Ed-mundson’s] statements do not fall within the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. In addition, [Edmundson’s] statements do not fall under the Statement Against Interest exception the hearsay rule since [Edmundson] (the de-clarant) was available to testify at [Appellant’s] trial but [Appellant] failed to present her as a witness. See Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3). Since the exclusion of the statements was not contrary to law, such exclusion did not deny [Appellant] a right to a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The justification of this rule is to be sought in the age-long experience of mankind that ordinarily an innocent person will spontaneously repel false accusations against him, and that a failure to do so is therefore some indication of guilt. Its probative force is derived not from the credibility of the accuser but from the silence of the accused in response to it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.