In Re Bruckshaw

24 A.3d 860

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 14, 2011·No. 724 EAL 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 14th day of July 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED to the following issue. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether a court is empowered to remove a principal juror without any reason and without any notice to the parties, and replace her with the last possible alternate, again without any notice to the parties, after all evidence was submitted and the jury had already retired to deliberate?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 14th day of July 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED to the following issue. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether a court is empowered to remove a principal juror without any reason and without any notice to the parties, and replace her with the last possible alternate, again without any notice to the parties, after all evidence was submitted and the jury had already retired to deliberate?

In Re Bruckshaw, 24 A.3d 860 (Pa. 2011).

Pincite

24 A.3d 860 (In Re Bruckshaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital of the Philadelphia

58 A.3d 102 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)

Opinion

Related