Commonwealth v. Swinehart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CAPPY, Justice.
This case presents the question of whether the use and derivative use immunity provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947, is consistent with the Pennsylvania constitutional privilege at Article 1, Section 9, against compelled self-incrimination. 1 For the reasons that follow we find that use and derivative use immunity is consistent with the protection provided under our state constitution. Thus, for the reasons that follow, the judgement of the Superior Court is affirmed.
The issue before the Court arises from the investigation into the murder of David Swinehart on…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by68 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TurnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. PadillasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Jones v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. MeansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Commonwealth v. RussoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.