juror hearing in Pennsylvania

6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2025 2 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 (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Commonwealth v. Cox, J., Aplt.green pa · 2016 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Blakeney characterizes the Commonwealth’s argument as contrary to our precedent, which “does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing [that a] party has put forth reasonable effort to obtain the information upon which a claim is based.” Appellant’s Brief at 12 (citing Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 230 (Pa. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).	1	1
Commonwealth v. Lagreen pasuperct · 1994 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See La, supra. Lampe claims that he is entitled to a hearing to further explore this alleged juror error.	1	1
Commonwealth v. Browngreen pasuperct · 1974 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 231 Pa.Super. 431 , 332 A.2d 828 (1974) (juror, during poll, responded "not guilty" twice; further inquiry revealed the juror had hearing impairment; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Corbin, 215 Pa.Super. 63 , 257 A.2d 356 (1969) (trial court refused to hear a question 214 from juror who, during poll, indicated a problem with the verdict; juror, after recording of verdict, stated he would like to change his vote; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Watson, 211 Pa.Super. 394 , 236 A.2d 567 (1967) (juror, during poll, expressed disagreement with guilty verd 1979See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 231 Pa.Super. 431 , 332 A.2d 828 (1974) (juror, during poll, responded "not guilty" twice; further inquiry revealed the juror had hearing impairment; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Corbin, 215 Pa.Super. 63 , 257 A.2d 356 (1969) (trial court refused to hear a question 214 from juror who, during poll, indicated a problem with the verdict; juror, after recording of verdict, stated he would like to change his vote; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Watson, 211 Pa.Super. 394 , 236 A.2d 567 (1967) (juror, during poll, expressed disagreement with guilty verd	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Batson v. Kentucky green scotus · 1986 1 sentence 2022CP-51-CR-0002611- : 2013, CP-51-CR-0002614-2013, CP- Appellant : 51-CR-0002617-2013, CP-51-CR- : 0002815-2013, CP-51-CR-0002820- : 2013, CP-51-CR-0002853-2013, CP- : 51-CR-0002862-2013 and CP-51- : CR-0002864-2013 : : ARGUED: December 7, 2021 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: April 12, 2022 The Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (“OAJC”) recognizes that a prosecutor striking a juror in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (holding that striking even one potential juror for racial reasons violates the Equal Protection Clause), definitionally inv	1	2022–2022
Commonwealth v. Watson green pasuperct · 1967 2 sentences 1979See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 231 Pa.Super. 431 , 332 A.2d 828 (1974) (juror, during poll, responded "not guilty" twice; further inquiry revealed the juror had hearing impairment; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Corbin, 215 Pa.Super. 63 , 257 A.2d 356 (1969) (trial court refused to hear a question 214 from juror who, during poll, indicated a problem with the verdict; juror, after recording of verdict, stated he would like to change his vote; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Watson, 211 Pa.Super. 394 , 236 A.2d 567 (1967) (juror, during poll, expressed disagreement with guilty verd 1979See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 231 Pa.Super. 431 , 332 A.2d 828 (1974) (juror, during poll, responded "not guilty" twice; further inquiry revealed the juror had hearing impairment; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Corbin, 215 Pa.Super. 63 , 257 A.2d 356 (1969) (trial court refused to hear a question 214 from juror who, during poll, indicated a problem with the verdict; juror, after recording of verdict, stated he would like to change his vote; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Watson, 211 Pa.Super. 394 , 236 A.2d 567 (1967) (juror, during poll, expressed disagreement with guilty verd	1	1979–1979
Commonwealth v. Corbin green pasuperct · 1969 2 sentences 1979See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 231 Pa.Super. 431 , 332 A.2d 828 (1974) (juror, during poll, responded "not guilty" twice; further inquiry revealed the juror had hearing impairment; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Corbin, 215 Pa.Super. 63 , 257 A.2d 356 (1969) (trial court refused to hear a question 214 from juror who, during poll, indicated a problem with the verdict; juror, after recording of verdict, stated he would like to change his vote; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Watson, 211 Pa.Super. 394 , 236 A.2d 567 (1967) (juror, during poll, expressed disagreement with guilty verd 1979See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 231 Pa.Super. 431 , 332 A.2d 828 (1974) (juror, during poll, responded "not guilty" twice; further inquiry revealed the juror had hearing impairment; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Corbin, 215 Pa.Super. 63 , 257 A.2d 356 (1969) (trial court refused to hear a question 214 from juror who, during poll, indicated a problem with the verdict; juror, after recording of verdict, stated he would like to change his vote; new trial ordered); Commonwealth v. Watson, 211 Pa.Super. 394 , 236 A.2d 567 (1967) (juror, during poll, expressed disagreement with guilty verd	1	1979–1979
Commonwealth v. Shoemaker green pa · 1913 1 sentence 1930Had counsel desired other alleged objectionable matter contained in the speeches of the assistant district attorney placed on the record for purposes of review, he should have followed the course outlined by this court in Com. v. Shoemaker, 240 Pa. 255, 259 , where we indicated that, when things said at trial are objected to, the attorney making the objection should request the trial judge to direct the official stenographer to place the remarks of record, “as the court had heard and understood them.” If, as here, all of the speeches of counsel appear in the notes of testimony, they must be ac	1	1930–1930
Commonwealth v. Del Vaccio green pa · 1930 1 sentence 1930This is the same situation that we had to deal with in the very recent case of Com. v. Del Vaccio, 299 Pa. 547 , and we there said that while the speeches made by counsel on both sides were transcribed by the official stenographer, yet the only motion made by counsel for defendant was the customary one that the stenographic notes of the evidence and charge be transcribed (even that motion does not seem to have been made in this case); and we held that the sole remark of the prosecuting officer which would be reviewed, was that covered by the assignment of error containing the appellant’s motio	1	1930–1930

Where else courts name it

NY 33 (1878–2022) CA 20 (1990–2024) TX 19 (1972–2018) AR 12 (1994–1998) FL 11 (1937–2023) OH 10 (2000–2024) IA 9 (1982–2022) CO 8 (2011–2025) IL 8 (1935–2022) AL 8 (1981–1995) MO 7 (1879–2010) AZ 7 (1939–2020) NC 7 (1993–2024) OK 7 (1929–2006) SC 6 (1908–2014) PA 6 (1930–2025) VA 6 (1934–2005) MA 5 (1987–2023) GA 5 (1943–2022) WI 5 (1994–2024) NM 4 (1996–2020) TN 4 (1995–2013) KS 4 (1938–2024) LA 4 (1942–2011) WA 4 (2013–2023) MS 3 (1970–2000) NJ 3 (1999–2004) IN 3 (1962–2014) MI 3 (2015–2021) KY 2 (1961–2021) WV 2 (1973–2001) MN 2 (1985–2001) SD 2 (2007–2018) HI 2 (2007–2009) MD 2 (1903–2024) CT 2 (1925–1998) ID 2 (1969–2001) NH 2 (2004–2016)

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