9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences1981In Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statement obtained in violation of Miranda could be used for impeachment purposes, provided that the statement was trustworthy. 1981In Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statement obtained in violation of Miranda could be used for impeachment purposes, provided that the statement was trustworthy. | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Knightgreen2 sentences1986According to the trial court, the statement obtained in violation of appellant’s rights was “merely cumulative of other overwhelming and largely uncontroverted evidence properly before the jury.” Commonwealth v. Knight, 469 Pa. 57, 63 , 364 A.2d 902, 905 (1976). 1986According to the trial court, the statement obtained in violation of appellant’s rights was “merely cumulative of other overwhelming and largely uncontroverted evidence properly before the jury.” Commonwealth v. Knight, 469 Pa. 57, 63 , 364 A.2d 902, 905 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Woodsgreen2 sentences1982In refusing to follow Harris , the Court adopted the reasoning of the concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Woods, 455 Pa. 1, 7 , 312 A.2d 357, 360 (1973), in which Justice ROBERTS, joined by Justices O’BRIEN and NIX, stated: Harris-type use of constitutionally infirm confessions forces upon an accused a grisly Hobson’s choice. 1982In refusing to follow Harris , the Court adopted the reasoning of the concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Woods, 455 Pa. 1, 7 , 312 A.2d 357, 360 (1973), in which Justice ROBERTS, joined by Justices O’BRIEN and NIX, stated: Harris-type use of constitutionally infirm confessions forces upon an accused a grisly Hobson’s choice. | 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. Triplett
green
2 sentences1987It is true that in Commonwealth v. Triplett, 462 Pa. 244 , 341 A.2d 62 (1975), the Court held that under article 1 section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution a statement obtained in violation of Miranda could not be admitted at trial even for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant. 1987It is true that in Commonwealth v. Triplett, 462 Pa. 244 , 341 A.2d 62 (1975), the Court held that under article 1 section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution a statement obtained in violation of Miranda could not be admitted at trial even for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant. | 4 | 1981–1987 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2026Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing [Bishop’s] petition where trial counsel was ineffective for failing to distinguish ____________________________________________ 1 Although our Supreme Court did not reach the merits, it noted that the United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not require the suppression of physical evidence recovered as a result of a statement obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and “[t]o date, Article I, Section 9 has not been interpreted by this Court to provide any greater prote | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Commonwealth v. Chacko
green
1 sentence2002Chacho, 459 A.2d at 316 . 5 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Commonwealth v. Futch
green
2 sentences1978JACOBS, President Judge: Appellant Paul Gasper appeals to this Court from the denial of his Post Conviction Hearing Act petition by the court below. 1 The only issue presented is whether appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress a statement obtained in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 118 (now Pa.R.Crim.P. 130) and Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389 , 290 A.2d 417 (1972). 2 We find *145 that trial counsel was ineffective and, accordingly, reverse the order of the lower court and remand this case for a new trial. 1978JACOBS, President Judge: Appellant Paul Gasper appeals to this Court from the denial of his Post Conviction Hearing Act petition by the court below. 1 The only issue presented is whether appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress a statement obtained in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 118 (now Pa.R.Crim.P. 130) and Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389 , 290 A.2d 417 (1972). 2 We find *145 that trial counsel was ineffective and, accordingly, reverse the order of the lower court and remand this case for a new trial. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.