6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2018 0 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2018See Rega, 20 A.3d at 787 (holding that because the appellant “did not object to the after-hours courtroom arrangements [which ostensibly violated his right to a public trial], the only cognizable aspect of his claim is that of deficient stewardship, as to which he must establish prejudice”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 500 A.2d 173, 177 (Pa. Super. 1985) (applying the “actual prejudice” standard when assessing the appellant’s claim that his right to a public trial was violated, and that counsel acted ineffectively by failing to object to the court’s conducting nonpublic jury se 2015See Commonwealth - 10 - J-S79016-14 v. Williams, 9 A.3d 613, 619 (Pa. 2010) (holding that while the defendant’s unqualified right to be present at every stage of the trial was violated without an objection from trial counsel, counsel’s failure to object did not result in a total failure to subject the case to the adversarial process, and therefore was not an instance where a presumption of prejudice applied); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 500 A.2d 173, 177-178 (Pa. Super. 1985) (petitioner alleging ineffective assistance arising from counsel’s failure to seek public voir dire must demonstr | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Hartmangreen2 sentences2018See Commonwealth v. Hartman, 638 A.2d 968, 972 (Pa. 1994) (rejecting appellant’s argument that the trial court’s order to briefly lock the courtroom doors during the charge to the jury constituted a public trial violation, where all who were present were permitted to remain, and the closure was simply to ensure that the jury would not be distracted by the coming and going of courtroom spectators). 2018See Commonwealth v. Hartman, 638 A.2d 968, 972 (Pa. 1994) (rejecting appellant’s argument that the trial court’s order to briefly lock the courtroom doors during the charge to the jury constituted a public trial violation, where all who were present were permitted to remain, and the closure was simply to ensure that the jury would not be distracted by the coming and going of courtroom spectators). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2015See Commonwealth - 10 - J-S79016-14 v. Williams, 9 A.3d 613, 619 (Pa. 2010) (holding that while the defendant’s unqualified right to be present at every stage of the trial was violated without an objection from trial counsel, counsel’s failure to object did not result in a total failure to subject the case to the adversarial process, and therefore was not an instance where a presumption of prejudice applied); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 500 A.2d 173, 177-178 (Pa. Super. 1985) (petitioner alleging ineffective assistance arising from counsel’s failure to seek public voir dire must demonstr | 1 | 1 |
Gannett Co. v. DePasqualegreen2 sentences1980The Court in Gannett made clear that although a criminal defendant’s right to a public trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the public trial clause does not guarantee to a criminal defendant the correlative right to waive a public proceeding and compel closure. 99 S.Ct. at 2907 . 1980See also 99 S.Ct. at 2924-25 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weaver v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Brandt
green
1 sentence2015See Commonwealth - 10 - J-S79016-14 v. Williams, 9 A.3d 613, 619 (Pa. 2010) (holding that while the defendant’s unqualified right to be present at every stage of the trial was violated without an objection from trial counsel, counsel’s failure to object did not result in a total failure to subject the case to the adversarial process, and therefore was not an instance where a presumption of prejudice applied); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 500 A.2d 173, 177-178 (Pa. Super. 1985) (petitioner alleging ineffective assistance arising from counsel’s failure to seek public voir dire must demonstr | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re MB
green
1 sentence2010As we recognized in M.B., a child’s privacy interests are not merely a “mantra” but rather are matters of “paramount concern.” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Commonwealth v. Contakos
green
2 sentences1989Appellant argues that reversal is mandated by our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Contakos, 499 Pa. 340 , 453 A.2d 578 (1982) (plurality). 1989Appellant argues that reversal is mandated by our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Contakos, 499 Pa. 340 , 453 A.2d 578 (1982) (plurality). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.