Moore v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 34 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In all instances, the question is whether the proposed evidence is primarily to prove the commission of another disconnected crime, or whether it is material to some issue in the case. If it is material and logically relevant to an issue in the case whether to prove an element of the crime, or to controvert a material contention of the defendant is not admissible because in making the proof the commission of an independent disconnected crime is an inseparable feature of it.”

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

2. “First, the distinction between instances in which prejudice can be presumed and when it cannot is subject to the arbitrariness inherent in I-know-it-when-1see-it standards of measurement. Second, and more importantly, the inquiry into prejudice mandated in many cases where prejudice would not be presumed threatens to violate the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Beckham v. Commonwealth

3. ““is admissible if, (1) it is offered to prove motive, intent, knowledge, identity, plan or scheme, or absence of mistake or accident; (2) such evidence is relevant to the issues other than proof of a general criminal disposition, and (3) the possibility of prejudice to the accused is outweighed by the probative worth and need for the evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Waters v. Kassulke