invocation privilege in Pennsylvania

2019The Commonwealth Court agreed, quoting its earlier decision in Appeal of Bernstein for the proposition that "the nature of the property interest a party possesses, if any, in an eminent domain proceeding is properly raised by preliminary objections, and the failure to raise the issue by means of preliminary objections constitutes a waiver of such issues." West Whiteland Assocs. , 690 A.2d at 1269 (quoting Appeal of Bernstein , 535 A.2d at 1214 ).

2019The Commonwealth Court agreed, quoting its earlier decision in Appeal of Bernstein for the proposition that “the nature of the property interest a party possesses, if any, in an eminent domain proceeding is properly raised by preliminary objections, and the failure to raise the issue by means of preliminary objections constitutes a waiver of such issues.” West Whiteland Assocs., 690 A.2d at 1269 (quoting Appeal of Bernstein, 535 A.2d at 1214 ).

2019The Commonwealth Court agreed, quoting its earlier decision in Appeal of Bernstein for the proposition that "the nature of the property interest a party possesses, if any, in an eminent domain proceeding is properly raised by preliminary objections, and the failure to raise the issue by means of preliminary objections constitutes a waiver of such issues." West Whiteland Assocs. , 690 A.2d at 1269 (quoting Appeal of Bernstein , 535 A.2d at 1214 ).

2019The Commonwealth Court agreed, quoting its earlier decision in Appeal of Bernstein for the proposition that “the nature of the property interest a party possesses, if any, in an eminent domain proceeding is properly raised by preliminary objections, and the failure to raise the issue by means of preliminary objections constitutes a waiver of such issues.” West Whiteland Assocs., 690 A.2d at 1269 (quoting Appeal of Bernstein, 535 A.2d at 1214 ).

2004We do not think that the invocation of this rule in this case is an act of exalting form over substance (see Tax Claim Bureau, German Township, 496 Pa. 46 , 436 A.2d 144 (1981) because the petition in this case had none of the ingredients of a complaint *536 and no response in the form of an answer or other adversarial pleading was invited or made.

2004We do not think that the invocation of this rule in this case is an act of exalting form over substance (see Tax Claim Bureau, German Township, 496 Pa. 46 , 436 A.2d 144 (1981) because the petition in this case had none of the ingredients of a complaint *536 and no response in the form of an answer or other adversarial pleading was invited or made.

2026Although Hoffman suggests a liberal construction of the Fifth Amendment, protecting answers that would furnish a “link in the chain” of incriminating evidence, and that a witness need not prove “the hazard of incrimination” because doing so could undermine the very protection the privilege is intended to afford, the Hoffman Court also expresses that the witness is not excused from answering “merely because [s]he declares” that responding would incriminate her; rather, “[her] say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.” Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 .

2022Id. (emphasis added). 5 Here, unlike the petition for counsel fees in Montgomery, Mr. Rose’s Petition bore the hallmarks of a complaint in an action at law.

2020At least with respect to the general areas of inquiry that Petitioners have identified, this Court, similar to the Supreme Court in League of Women Voters II, does not need to reach the issue of whether the Speech and Debate Clause can be invoked to prohibit discovery from a legislator in a case where the constitutionality of legislation is being challenged because the Court is not convinced the topics that Petitioners identified fall within the ambit of the Speech and Debate Clause.10 The topics identified by Petitioners are purely factual topics that are matters of public information and do

2020In addition to requiring a detailed, particularized justification for the invocation of privilege or exemption, the court also prescribed in camera review to consider the persuasiveness of the justifications, and, in some instances, that the agency grant the requestor’s counsel access to the unredacted documents under “special agreement.” Id. at 437-38 .

2017To the extent petitioner inartfully intended to raise that exception by citing Alleyne [v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013),] and Montgomery v. Louisiana[, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016], those cases fail to support the invocation of the exception.

2017Id. at 1153-57 .

2017To the extent petitioner inartfully intended to raise that exception by citing Alleyne [v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013),] and Montgomery v. Louisiana[, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016], those cases fail to support the invocation of the exception.

2015To the contrary, one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions... is to protect innocent men...'who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" Reiner, 532 U.S. at 21 .

2014The Court has also discussed a witness’ invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination as follows: The standard against which a trial judge must determine whether a witness may properly invoke a claimed Fifth Amendment privilege was set forth in Commonwealth v. Carrera, 424 Pa. 551 , 227 A.2d 627 (1967).

2014The Court has also discussed a witness’ invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination as follows: The standard against which a trial judge must determine whether a witness may properly invoke a claimed Fifth Amendment privilege was set forth in Commonwealth v. Carrera, 424 Pa. 551 , 227 A.2d 627 (1967).

2014Thus, the prosecution cannot attempt to provoke a mistrial in order to obtain “a more favorable opportunity to convict the defendant.” Id. at 674 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 (quoting United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611 , 96 S.Ct. 1075 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976)).

2014Thus, the prosecution cannot attempt to provoke a mistrial in order to obtain “a more favorable opportunity to convict the defendant.” Id. at 674 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 (quoting United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611 , 96 S.Ct. 1075 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976)).

2014Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 673 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). “[T]he defendant’s right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a'hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Id.

2014Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 673 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). “[T]he defendant’s right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a'hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Id.

2009During his cross-examination, the defendant either objected to the questions or invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege on numerous occasions; the trial court sustained the invocation of the privilege about half the time. ¶ 10 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, while- disagreeing with the Superior Court’s assertion that Appellant had completely waived the privilege, held that when a defendant takes the stand and “opens an area of inquiry, he cannot claim the privilege when, on cross-examination, he is interrogated in that particular area, and that wide latitude should be allowed in cross-examinatio

1992Sims, 513 Pa. at 376 , 521 A.2d 391, 395 .

1992Sims, 513 Pa. at 376 , 521 A.2d 391, 395 .

1983Eastgate Ent., Inc. v. Bank & Trust Co. of Old York Rd., 236 Pa.Super. 503, 506 , 345 A.2d 279, 280-81 (1975); Lehner v. Montgomery, 180 Pa.Super. 493, 496-97 , 119 A.2d 626, 628 (1956).