Commonwealth v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2003
2 federal appellate · 15 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 Douglas v. Alabama · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Namet v. United States · Whiskey Cases v. Ford
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trial court properly ruled that the statements of Owens and Furman would be inadmissible if they refused to testify at Brown’s trial.... The Commonwealth asserts that, as soon as the accomplices take the stand and refuse to testify, the prosecutor may proceed to impeach their silence by introducing their confessions as prior inconsistent statements under the doctrine established in Jett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 436 S.W.2d 788 (1969). The Commonwealth not only misconstrues Jett , but fails to grasp the rationale behind its requirements. Jett establishes that the effect of prior inconsistent statements once admitted into evidence, is not limited to impeaching the credibility of witnesses. It allows such statements to be considered as substantive evidence when a witness is available and subject to cross-examination. Jett, supra at 792 . If a witness remains silent he makes no statement. Consequently, there is nothing with which the prior statement can be incon- sistent_ the probative effect of the prior statement never ripens into an issue.” Id. at 703-04. [Emphasis added.] Speaking to the hearsay exception for”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“At a pre-trial hearing, Owens and Furman indicated that they would refuse to testify on the grounds of their ... privileges against self-incrimination.... [T]he trial court rightly decided that the Commonwealth not be allowed to call them as witnesses because the Commonwealth was aware that they would assert their privileges against self-incrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"An ex post facto law, within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, is one which . . . alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, than the law required at the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.