Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 38 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Reedy v. Commonwealth.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reedy v. Commonwealth Anchor | green | “where there is mere speculation that contamination or tampering could have occurred, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit the evidence and let what doubt there may be go to the weight to be given the evidence.” | 18 |
| 2 | Pope v. Commonwealth | green | “the commonwealth is not required to exclude every conceivable possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering.” | 5 |
| 3 | Robinson v. Commonwealth | green | “the requirement of reasonable certainty is not met when some vital link in the chain of possession is not accounted for, because then it is as likely as not that the evidence analyzed was not the evidence originally received.” | 5 |
| 4 | Reedy v. Commonwealth | green | “a showing with reasonable certainty that the item has not been altered, substituted, or contaminated prior to analysis, in any way that would affect the results of the analysis.” | 4 |
| 5 | Robinson v. Commonwealth | green | “because then it is as likely as not that the evidence analyzed was not the evidence originally received.” | 3 |
| 6 | Robinson v. Commonwealth | green | “vital link in the chain of possession” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.