Commonwealth v. Copenhefer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 99 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On June 16, 1988, Sally Weiner received a telephone call purportedly from a congressman’s office asking that she meet with the caller to discuss arrangements for the presentation of a civic award to her husband. The next day, around noon, she drove to the agreed meeting place, parked her car, and was never seen again alive. Several hours later, her husband, Harry, manager of the Corry office of Pennbank, received a telephone call playing a recorded message from his wife telling him she had been kidnapped and that the kidnapper demanded ransom money from the bank. Mr. Weiner was directed to retrieve a duffel bag from the parking lot outside his bank; the bag contained additional threats and instructions. Mr. Weiner called a vice president of the bank, as well as the bank’s security office, local police, state police, and the FBI. Mr. Weiner never received the additional radio instructions necessary to follow the directions contained in the duffel bag and therefore did not comply with the kidnapper’s demands. Sally Weiner’s body was discovered two days later on June 19, 1988, in a rural area north of her home. She had died as the result of a gunshot wound to the back of her head. Initial investigations by the FBI, state police, and local police resulted in the discovery of a series of computer-generated notes and instructions, each one leading to another, which had been concealed at various hiding places in and around Corry, Pennsylvania. The investigation also produced several”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Copenhefer v. Horn

2. “The qualification of an expert witness is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 471 Pa. 419 , 370 A.2d 373, 375 (1977). In Pennsylvania, the standard for qualification of an expert is a liberal one and the test to be applied is whether the witness has a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation. If he does, he may testify and the weight given to that testimony is for the fact-finder to determine. Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 519 Pa. 116 , 546 A.2d 26, 31 (1988)(emphasis added). “It is also well established that an expert may render an opinion based on training and experience; formal education on the subject matter is not necessarily required.” Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 553 Pa. 285 , 719 A.2d 242, 254-55 (1998) (citing Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc., 541 Pa. 474 , 664 A.2d 525, 528 (1995)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 48 - Gunn v. Grossman

3. “Where the prosecutor on his own initiative asks the jury to draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence, Griffin holds that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is violated. But where as in this case the prosecutor’s reference to the defendant’s opportunity to testify is a fair response to a claim made by defendant or his counsel, we think there is no violation of the privilege.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 137 F. App'x 510 - Beneshunas v. Klem