Maxwell v. Pennsylvania

finding that prosecutor’s statement that the defense was “blowing smoke” was proper in response to personal attacks made by defense counsel during closing remarks

Commonwealth v. Hall

Chester County Court of Common Pleas, 1995

new trial will not be granted unless it is inevitable that prosecutor’s remark prejudices the defendant to such a degree that it prevents the jury from weighing the evidence and rendering a true verdict

Commonwealth v. Gray

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992

“[sjimply questioning potential veniremen on their position regarding the death penalty, or excluding those who are strongly opposed to it and cannot impose it under any conditions, does not necessarily produce a prosecution-oriented jury”

In the Interest of Jermaine

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1990

consent to search house given by sixteen year old was valid where record was devoid of any evidence of emotional immaturity or mental instability and indicated to the contrary that decision was rational

In the Interest of Jermaine

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1990

consent to search house given by sixteen year old was valid where record was devoid of any evidence of emotional immaturity or mental instability and indicated to the contrary that decision was rational

State v. Scott

Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1986

“Although age is one element to acknowledge in ascertaining whether consent was given willingly, minority status alone does not prevent one from giving consent.”

Maxwell v. Pennsylvania

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack