Commonwealth v. Atkinson
954 A.2d 566
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of July 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court to address the following issue:
Whether the trial court erred in finding that testimony of a prosecution witness and his identification of Petitioner at a suppression hearing via videoconferencing *567 equipment was not prejudicial to Petitioner’s right to confrontation and was thus constitutional?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Atkinson, 954 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2008).
954 A.2d 566 (Commonwealth v. Atkinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Samuel-Bassett v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
954 A.2d 566 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)