15 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 4 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. Kennedygreen2 sentences2014Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 598 Pa. 621 , 959 A.2d 916, 923-24 (2008) (citation omitted). 2014Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 598 Pa. 621 , 959 A.2d 916, 923-24 (2008) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Philistingreen1 sentence2025“To prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim, appellant must show the prosecutor’s actions had the unavoidable effect of undermining the fact- finder’s neutrality so as to preclude a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Philistin, 53 A.3d 1, 17 (Pa. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wholaver, E., Aplt.green1 sentence2024See Wholaver, 177 A.3d at 147 (recognizing that an underlying issue to be raised on direct appeal is a “wholly distinct legal claim” from a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). - 16 - J-S13020-24 DATE: 8/5/2024 - 17 - | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Powellgreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406, 423 (Pa. 2008) (holding that Powell waived a prosecutorial misconduct claim concerning the Commonwealth’s closing argument by not making a contemporaneous objection). 2023See Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406 , 423 (Pa. 2008) (holding that Powell waived a prosecutorial misconduct claim concerning the Commonwealth’s closing argument by not making a contemporaneous objection). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Harveygreen1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Harvey, 526 A.2d 330, 333 (Pa. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Aligreen1 sentence2019See Ali, 10 A.3d at 293 ; see also N.T., 8/25/17, at 91. | 1 | 1 |
Nicholas v. Beardgreen1 sentence2018See Stokes, supra; see Holmes, supra. While Appellant failed to raise the applicability of any exception, Appellant’s argument in connection with the prosecutorial misconduct claim seems to suggest that he relies on the newly-discovered timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), consisting, in the instant matter, in the newly discovered witness Walczak’s alleged perjury. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jettegreen1 sentence2018“The fact that [Appellant’s] direct appeal counsel decided that the best chance on appeal lay in the five claims she raised, and not the instant prosecutorial misconduct claim, does not call direct appeal counsel’s professional competency into question.” Id. (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032, 1042 (Pa. 2011) (appellate counsel may forego issues of arguable merit and focus on those claims deemed most promising)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2015Commonwealth v. Williams, 863 A.2d 505, 518 (Pa.2004) (prosecutor’s remark that defendant had opportunity to bring in and subpoena witnesses was fair response to defense counsel’s remark regarding “tremendous resources” Commonwealth had to build case); Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa.2012) (if challenged remark is in response to the defense’s closing argument, “it will generally be deemed fair response and hence permissible comment”); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 701 A.2d 492, 509-10 (Pa.1997) (prosecutor’s closing remark that defendant did not prove someone other than appellant left sali | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hawkinsgreen1 sentence2015Commonwealth v. Williams, 863 A.2d 505, 518 (Pa.2004) (prosecutor’s remark that defendant had opportunity to bring in and subpoena witnesses was fair response to defense counsel’s remark regarding “tremendous resources” Commonwealth had to build case); Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa.2012) (if challenged remark is in response to the defense’s closing argument, “it will generally be deemed fair response and hence permissible comment”); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 701 A.2d 492, 509-10 (Pa.1997) (prosecutor’s closing remark that defendant did not prove someone other than appellant left sali | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Penningtongreen1 sentence2015N.T. 12/26/2007 at 2; Commonwealth v. Pennington, 751 A.2d 212, 217 (Pa. Super. 2000)(citation omitted)(Where pre-sentence reports exist, Pennsylvania courts presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors). 8 Circulated 03/11/2015 10:04 AM Petitioner in his pro se petition raised two additional issues, a prosecutorial misconduct claim and a perjury claim, which PCRA counsel believes are without merit. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2015See Spotz, 84 A.3d at 311 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2014In considering a prosecutorial misconduct claim, “our attention is focused on whether the defendant was deprived of a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 884 A.2d 920, 927 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 726 , 928 A.2d 1289 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Judy
green
2 sentences2025Although the holding of Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Super. 2009) applies to claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, we find its rationale to be instructive: It is settled that it is improper for a prosecutor to express a personal belief as to the credibility of the defendant or other witnesses. 2025An evaluation of a prosecutorial misconduct claim “requires us to evaluate whether a defendant received a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Judy, 978 A.2d at 1019 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Pierce
green
2 sentences2020When counsel subsequently amended Appellant’s PCRA petition on May 30, 2018, counsel omitted Appellant’s principal complaint about direct appeal counsel’s ineffectiveness in relation to the jury instruction issue, and instead argued only trial counsel’s ____________________________________________ 6 See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1987). -7- J-S32027-20 ineffectiveness with respect to the prosecutorial misconduct claim. 2020When counsel subsequently amended Appellant’s PCRA petition on May 30, 2018, counsel omitted Appellant’s principal complaint about direct appeal counsel’s ineffectiveness in relation to the jury instruction issue, and instead argued only trial counsel’s ____________________________________________ 6 See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1987). -7- J-S32027-20 ineffectiveness with respect to the prosecutorial misconduct claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Tedford
green
1 sentence2015However, for the purpose of a prosecutorial misconduct claim, “[t]he touchstone is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Tedford, 960 A.2d at 28 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Keaton
green
1 sentence2015Commonwealth v. Williams, 863 A.2d 505, 518 (Pa.2004) (prosecutor’s remark that defendant had opportunity to bring in and subpoena witnesses was fair response to defense counsel’s remark regarding “tremendous resources” Commonwealth had to build case); Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa.2012) (if challenged remark is in response to the defense’s closing argument, “it will generally be deemed fair response and hence permissible comment”); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 701 A.2d 492, 509-10 (Pa.1997) (prosecutor’s closing remark that defendant did not prove someone other than appellant left sali | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Com. v. Culver
green
1 sentence2014In considering a prosecutorial misconduct claim, “our attention is focused on whether the defendant was deprived of a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 884 A.2d 920, 927 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 726 , 928 A.2d 1289 (2007). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.
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.