Commonwealth v. Clancy, J., Pet

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Clancy, J., Pet

170 A.3d 1038

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 11, 2017·No. 119 WAL 2017 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Where, in closing argument, the district attorney characterized the Petitioner as a “cold blooded killer” and a “dangerous man,” did the district attorney violate the ruling of this Court announced in Commonwealth v. Capalla, 185 A. 203, 205 (Pa. 1936)?

(2) Were the district attorney’s characterizations of the Petitioner during closing argument permissible oratorical emphasis consistent with Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) and ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 3-5.8?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Where, in closing argument, the district attorney characterized the Petitioner as a “cold blooded killer” and a “dangerous man,” did the district attorney violate the ruling of this Court announced in Commonwealth v. Capalla, 185 A. 203, 205 (Pa. 1936)?

(2) Were the district attorney’s characterizations of the Petitioner during closing argument permissible oratorical emphasis consistent with Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) and ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 3-5.8?

Commonwealth v. Clancy, J., Pet, 170 A.3d 1038 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

170 A.3d 1038 (Commonwealth v. Clancy, J., Pet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related