Commonwealth v. Walak
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Hoffman, J.,
The instant appeal from a drag conviction raises two questions worthy of discussion: (1) the trial court erred when it refused to compel the Commonwealth to produce an eyewitness to the alleged crime; and, (2) that the Commonwealth, in violation of Commonwealth v. Kurtz,1 failed to communicate to the Court that the paid informant had received leniency on pending charges as a result of cooperation with the authorities in apprehending the appellant.
On September 18, 1973, the appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of violations of The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MacESuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. WalakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. HallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. KishbachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. KishbachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.