Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Stenhach

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 31, 1986No. 242 and 244PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HESTER, Judge:

Two criminal defense attorneys have appealed from convictions for hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence arising from their conduct while representing a defendant in a murder trial. Appellants George and Walter Stenhach were young public defenders appointed to represent Richard Buchanan, a man charged with first degree murder. Following Buchanan’s directions, appellants recovered a rifle stock used in the homicide. Allegedly believing that disclosure of the rifle stock would be legally and ethically prohibited, appellants did not deliver it to the prosecutor until…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BarudSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Scadden v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Rubin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  4. State v. Azad Haji AbdullahIdaho Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Commonwealth v. RothSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

24 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