Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Spotz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 3, 2014No. 576 CAPPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*258 SINGLE JUSTICE OPINION ON POSTDECISIONAL MOTIONS

Chief Justice CASTILLE.

I. Introduction

The central ancillary motion pending here asks that I withdraw my Concurring Opinion because I commented on the conduct and agenda of appellant’s counsel, who are affiliated with the Philadelphia-based Federal Community Defender’s Office (“FCDO”). I began my concurrence by noting that the source of the FCDO’s funding for its questionable forays into state court capital proceedings was not clear, though it appeared that the Administrative Office of Federal Courts (hereinafter “AO”) played a central role, and…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Cullen v. PinholsterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Spotz, M., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Commonwealth v. Davido, T., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Commonwealth v. Eichinger, J., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Commonwealth, Aplt v. Williams, T.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API