27 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1960–2025 8 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Bishopgreen2 sentences2023See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a); Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2003) (while appeal was still pending, trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold a bail hearing and consider application for bail). 2020See Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction ____________________________________________ it lacked jurisdiction to order bail is an issue that requires us “to interpret a statue and a rule of criminal procedure[.]” Id. -4- J-S64041-19 to hold a bail hearing and consider application for bail while appeal was still pending); see also Bell v. Kater, 839 A.2d 356, 358 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 858 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2004) (grant of appeal nunc pro tunc was a nullity because trial court entered the order at a time when it lacked | 7 | 7 |
Commonwealth ex rel. Alberti v. Boylegreen2 sentences2013The question of whether “the proof is evident or presumption great” that Pal committed that offense must be determined based upon “the Commonwealth’s evidence which is presented at the bail hearing.” Alberti, 412 Pa. at 400 , 195 A.2d at 98 . 2013The question of whether “the proof is evident or presumption great” that Pal committed that offense must be determined based upon “the Commonwealth’s evidence which is presented at the bail hearing.” Alberti, 412 Pa. at 400 , 195 A.2d at 98 . | 2 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Heisergreen2 sentences2013“At a bail hearing, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proof.” Com. v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70, 72 , 478 A.2d 1355, 1356 (1984). 2013“At a bail hearing, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proof.” Com. v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70, 72 , 478 A.2d 1355, 1356 (1984). | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2023See Patterson, 940 A.2d at 499-500 . -5- J-A07030-22 We now turn to the issue Purvis-Gilliam presents before this Court. 2022See Patterson, 940 A.2d at 499-500 . | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Truesdalegreen2 sentences2009Commonwealth v. Truesdale, 449 Pa. 325, 337-38 , 296 A.2d 829, 836 (1972); Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70, 72 , 478 A.2d 1355, 1356 (1984). 2009Commonwealth v. Truesdale, 449 Pa. 325, 337-38 , 296 A.2d 829, 836 (1972); Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70, 72 , 478 A.2d 1355, 1356 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Abedgreen1 sentence2021Compare Abed, 989 A.2d at 28 (noting that post-verdict bail revocation issue “is technically moot as we cannot grant relief), with Commonwealth v. Myers, 86 A.3d 286, 293 (Pa. Super. 2014) (remanding case for a bail hearing, “unless [the appellant] has completed his term of confinement). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Myersgreen1 sentence2021Compare Abed, 989 A.2d at 28 (noting that post-verdict bail revocation issue “is technically moot as we cannot grant relief), with Commonwealth v. Myers, 86 A.3d 286, 293 (Pa. Super. 2014) (remanding case for a bail hearing, “unless [the appellant] has completed his term of confinement). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Katergreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction ____________________________________________ it lacked jurisdiction to order bail is an issue that requires us “to interpret a statue and a rule of criminal procedure[.]” Id. -4- J-S64041-19 to hold a bail hearing and consider application for bail while appeal was still pending); see also Bell v. Kater, 839 A.2d 356, 358 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 858 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2004) (grant of appeal nunc pro tunc was a nullity because trial court entered the order at a time when it lacked | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Katergreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction ____________________________________________ it lacked jurisdiction to order bail is an issue that requires us “to interpret a statue and a rule of criminal procedure[.]” Id. -4- J-S64041-19 to hold a bail hearing and consider application for bail while appeal was still pending); see also Bell v. Kater, 839 A.2d 356, 358 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 858 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2004) (grant of appeal nunc pro tunc was a nullity because trial court entered the order at a time when it lacked | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth 1 v. Robinson, 480 A,2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 1984)(:finding no abuse of discretion in admission of evidence of crimes involved in a bail hearing in a prosecution for perjury which occurred at the bail revocation bearing, since> in establishing elements of pe_i:jury, Commonwealth could properly demonstrate that defendant had appeared for the bail revocation hearing, and reference to the prior criminal charges was necessary to complete the picture of the bail hearing at which the perjury occurred, the evidence was not offered to prove a general criminal disposition). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Farrisgreen2 sentences2009Eight years later, however, in Commonwealth v. Farris, 443 Pa. 251, 253 , 278 A.2d 906, 906 (1971), the Supreme Court held that since evidence offered at a preliminary hearing established a prima facie case of murder in the first degree, the court properly denied bail pending trial. 27 Relying upon Farris , 13 years later, the Superior Court, in Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70, 72-73 , 478 A.2d 1355, 1356 (1984), noted that the Commonwealth can satisfy its burden to prove that an accused is not entitled to bail by establishing a prima facie case of murder in the first degree. 2009Eight years later, however, in Commonwealth v. Farris, 443 Pa. 251, 253 , 278 A.2d 906, 906 (1971), the Supreme Court held that since evidence offered at a preliminary hearing established a prima facie case of murder in the first degree, the court properly denied bail pending trial. 27 Relying upon Farris , 13 years later, the Superior Court, in Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70, 72-73 , 478 A.2d 1355, 1356 (1984), noted that the Commonwealth can satisfy its burden to prove that an accused is not entitled to bail by establishing a prima facie case of murder in the first degree. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2015The purpose of the Miranda-Edwards guarantee, on the other hand — and hence the purpose of invoking it — is to protect a quite different interest: the suspect’s “desire to deal with the police only through counsel,” Edwards, supra, 451 U.S., at 484 , 101 S.Ct., at 1884 . 2015The purpose of the Miranda-Edwards guarantee, on the other hand — and hence the purpose of invoking it — is to protect a quite different interest: the suspect’s “desire to deal with the police only through counsel,” Edwards, supra, 451 U.S., at 484 , 101 S.Ct., at 1884 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Grazier
green
1 sentence2025Counsel contends that remand is necessary because Petitioner was permitted to proceed pro se at the bail hearing without the benefit of a colloquy pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Vurimindi
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Commonwealth v. King
green
1 sentence2018King, 689 A.2d at 920 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Austin v. United States
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 607-609, 113 S.Ct. 2801 (citations and quotation marks ■ omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Gouveia
green
1 sentence2015The Court concluded that the latter right was not invoked by counsel’s mere presence at the bail hearing, explaining: The purpose of the Sixth Amendment counsel guarantee — and hence the purpose of invoking it — is to “protec[t] the unaided layman at critical confrontations” with his “expert adversary,” the government, after “the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified” with respect to a particular alleged crime. [United States v.] Gouveia, 467 U.S. [180], at 189, 104 S.Ct. [2292], at 2298 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) ]. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Woomer
neutral
2 sentences2013In finding that the Commonwealth was obligated to establish more than a prima facie case, the court observed “that the language ‘proof is evident or presumption great’ means something more than primafacie evidence, for to read it in this manner would do nothing to advance the constitutional rights of the accused, since a suspect may not be held without a showing of prima facie evidence in any case.” Id. at 222 . 2013The Lancaster County court construed Alberti as making “a distinction between the Commonwealth’s burden of proof at a preliminary hearing and at a bail hearing.” Id. at 219 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Commonwealth v. Cohen
green
2 sentences2011Also, the assistant district attorney handling the prosecution stated at a bail hearing that bail should be denied because this was a contract killing and, also, that the Commonwealth might seek the death penalty "which . . . is allowed for premeditated contract killings." Id. at 179 , 413 A.2d at 1073 . 2011Also, the assistant district attorney handling the prosecution stated at a bail hearing that bail should be denied because this was a contract killing and, also, that the Commonwealth might seek the death penalty "which . . . is allowed for premeditated contract killings." Id. at 179 , 413 A.2d at 1073 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Browne v. People
green
1 sentence2009“Fontaine [v. Mullen, 117 R.I. 262 ,] 366 A.2d [1138,] 1142 [(R.I. 1976)" Browne, 2008 WL 4132233 at *11-12 . (citations omitted; footnotes omitted) Citing Commonwealth ex rel. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Fountaine v. Mullen
green
1 sentence2009“Fontaine [v. Mullen, 117 R.I. 262 ,] 366 A.2d [1138,] 1142 [(R.I. 1976)" Browne, 2008 WL 4132233 at *11-12 . (citations omitted; footnotes omitted) Citing Commonwealth ex rel. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Bonaparte
green
2 sentences2003Until our Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s petition for allowance of appeal or affirmed this Court’s decision and remanded the record, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convene a bail hearing to consider the merits of Bishop’s petition. ¶ 9 The PCRA court here was correct when, prior to our Supreme Court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s petition for allowance of appeal, and remand of the record, it found that pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) it had, “no jurisdiction to rule on [Bishop’s] request until the issues on appeal are decided by the Supreme Court.” Opinion, 3/28/03, at 5. ¶ 10 B 2003Until our Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s petition for allowance of appeal or affirmed this Court’s decision and remanded the record, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convene a bail hearing to consider the merits of Bishop’s petition. ¶ 9 The PCRA court here was correct when, prior to our Supreme Court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s petition for allowance of appeal, and remand of the record, it found that pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) it had, “no jurisdiction to rule on [Bishop’s] request until the issues on appeal are decided by the Supreme Court.” Opinion, 3/28/03, at 5. ¶ 10 B | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Commonwealth v. Samuel
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Commonwealth v. Samuel, 527 Pa. 298 , 590 A.2d 1245 (1991) (holding burden on Commonwealth to disprove claim of self-defense); Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299 , 608 A.2d 1030 (1992) (holding burden on Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged evidence is admissible); Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70 , 478 A.2d 1355 (1984) (holding burden on Commonwealth to prove at a bail hearing that defendant is not entitled to bail). 1997Cf. Commonwealth v. Samuel, 527 Pa. 298 , 590 A.2d 1245 (1991) (holding burden on Commonwealth to disprove claim of self-defense); Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299 , 608 A.2d 1030 (1992) (holding burden on Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged evidence is admissible); Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70 , 478 A.2d 1355 (1984) (holding burden on Commonwealth to prove at a bail hearing that defendant is not entitled to bail). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Commonwealth v. DeWitt
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Commonwealth v. Samuel, 527 Pa. 298 , 590 A.2d 1245 (1991) (holding burden on Commonwealth to disprove claim of self-defense); Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299 , 608 A.2d 1030 (1992) (holding burden on Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged evidence is admissible); Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70 , 478 A.2d 1355 (1984) (holding burden on Commonwealth to prove at a bail hearing that defendant is not entitled to bail). 1997Cf. Commonwealth v. Samuel, 527 Pa. 298 , 590 A.2d 1245 (1991) (holding burden on Commonwealth to disprove claim of self-defense); Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299 , 608 A.2d 1030 (1992) (holding burden on Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged evidence is admissible); Commonwealth v. Heiser, 330 Pa. Super. 70 , 478 A.2d 1355 (1984) (holding burden on Commonwealth to prove at a bail hearing that defendant is not entitled to bail). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McNeil v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences1991The Court thereafter stated that the Sixth Amendment *522 right to counsel was "offense-specific" whereas the Fifth Amendment right was "non-offense-specific." ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. at 2206-2207, 115 L.Ed.2d at 165-166 . 1991The Court thereafter stated that the Sixth Amend ment right to counsel was “offense-specific” whereas the Fifth Amendment right was “non-offense-specific.” — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. at 2206-2207, 115 L.Ed.2d at 165-166 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Commonwealth v. Caye
green
1 sentence1984Id., see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711. 2 At a bail hearing, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proof. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Commonwealth ex rel. Maisels v. Baldi
green
1 sentence1960Maisels v. Baldi, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 19 , 92 A. 2d 257 (1952); United States ex rel. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Ashman v. Ashman
green
1 sentence1960Maisels v. Baldi, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 19 , 92 A. 2d 257 (1952); United States ex rel. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.