capital defendant challenge (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

capital defendant challenge in Pennsylvania

5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Morgan v. Illinois green
scotus · 1992
2 sentences

2020Therefore, based on the requirement of impartiality embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a capital defendant may challenge for cause any prospective juror who maintains such views. [J-24-2020] - 26 Id. at 729 .

2019Id. at 729 , 112 S.Ct. 2222 .

42019–2020
Commonwealth v. Spence green
pa · 1993
2 sentences

2006In Hill , we did not definitively hold whether or not the remedy of dismissal was available to a capital defendant when a violation of Rule 600 has occurred. 6 Rather, after noting the fact that a capital defendant cannot be released on bail, and that Rule 600 provides for dismissal of charges only for those defendants out on bail who have not been brought to trial within 365 days of the date of the filing of the complaint, as well as Superior Court case law holding that a capital defendant was entitled to neither dismissal of charges nor nominal bail under Rule 600, we noted that the decision

2006In Hill , we did not definitively hold whether or not the remedy of dismissal was available to a capital defendant when a violation of Rule 600 has occurred. 6 Rather, after noting the fact that a capital defendant cannot be released on bail, and that Rule 600 provides for dismissal of charges only for those defendants out on bail who have not been brought to trial within 365 days of the date of the filing of the complaint, as well as Superior Court case law holding that a capital defendant was entitled to neither dismissal of charges nor nominal bail under Rule 600, we noted that the decision

12006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

PA § 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2502 (5) PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9711 (5) PA § 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2503 (3) PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9546 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 5 (2006–2020) OH 5 (1999–2020) TX 4 (2011–2015) IL 4 (1994–1999) MS 4 (1994–2018) OK 3 (1995–1998) KS 3 (2014–2017) AL 3 (2012–2017) ID 3 (2015–2015) MA 2 (1995–2012) KY 2 (2009–2010) AR 2 (2022–2022) NM 2 (2005–2005) IN 2 (2003–2009)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check