Commonwealth v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573, a trial court has the discretion to require the Commonwealth to reveal the names and addresses of all eyewitnesses, including confidential informants, where a defendant makes a showing of material need and reasonableness: (a) In all court cases, except as otherwise provided in Rule 230 (Disclosure of Testimony Before Investigating Grand Jury), if the defendant files a motion for pretrial discovery, the court may order the Commonwealth to allow the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy or photograph any of the following requested items, upon a showing that they are material to the preparation of the defense, and that the request is reasonable: (i) the names and addresses of eyewitnesses .... Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(i). The Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source. Commonwealth v. Bing, [ 551 Pa. 659 , 713 A.2d 56 (1998) ]; Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 545 Pa. 471 , 681 A.2d 1279 , 1283 n. 6 (1996). In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i), that the information sought is material to the preparation of the defense and that the request is reasonable. Roebuck, supra at 1283 . Only-after the defendant shows that the identity of the confidential informant is material to the defense is the trial court required to exercise its discretion to determine w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 99 - Commonwealth v. Watson

2. “Our case law provides that if a defendant shows that disclosure of an informant's identity would yield information material to his or her defense, and that the request for disclosure is reasonable, the trial court must then balance relevant factors to determine, in its discretion, whether the informant's identity should be revealed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Ellison

3. “[B]efore disclosure of an inform[ant's] identity is required in the face of the Commonwealth's assertion of privilege, more is necessary than a mere assertion by the defendant that such disclosure might be helpful in establishing a particular defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Koonce