Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Spotz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 29, 2005No. 79 and 80 WAP 2002PublishedCited by 85 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice CASTILLE.

The dispositive issue in these cross-appeals is whether the Superior Court erred in finding that trial counsel for appellee/cross-appellant Mark N. Spotz (“appellee”) was ineffective, as a matter of law, for failing to object to alleged prosecutorial references to appellee’s post-arrest silence. For the following reasons, we reverse the Superior Court’s grant of a new trial on this claim, reinstate appellee’s judgment of sentence, and dismiss this claim of counsel ineffectiveness, as well as the claims of counsel ineffectiveness raised on appellee’s cross-appeal,…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Bell v. ConeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

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

3Cited by85 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Commonwealth v. AliSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Commonwealth v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Commonwealth v. KoehlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

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

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

Powered by the Exa API