Commonwealth v. Rodriquez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defense counsel was aware at a pretrial discovery hearing that the officer’s surveillance location was one hundred feet north of [the intersection in question] and that he was approximately ten to twenty feet above street level.... It was also elicited that people were playing basketball on a court adjacent to a vacant lot on the northeast corner of [the street] and that these people were between [the officer’s] surveillance and the place where the buyer’s car was parked on [the street].... It is apparent from a review of this cross-examination that defense counsel had deduced the approximate location of the confidential surveillance site and was able to conduct an effective cross-examination with that information. Accordingly, we must agree with the Superior Court that [the defendant] has failed to meet his burden of explaining how a more detailed disclosure of the confidential surveillance location would have been necessary to his defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Nobles

2. “[W]henever the Commonwealth asserts that a surveillance location is confidential, the' defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that disclosure is necessary to conduct his defense. The Commonwealth would then have to come forward and explain the reasons why confidentiality must be preserved. At that point, the trial court must balance the relevant factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Roviaro v. United, States, 363 U.S. 53 [ 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 ] (1957), in order to determine whether the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of the surveillance location outweighs the defendant’s need for the information as it relates to his ability to adequately defend against the pending criminal charges.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 14 - Commonwealth v. Clark