Commonwealth v. Spotz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Bell v. ConeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by85 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. AliSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Commonwealth v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Commonwealth v. KoehlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.