Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Frattarola

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 12, 1984No. 347Published

1DissentLipez, Judge

The law clearly requires the immediate unsealing of both the bill of particulars and the Starks hearing transcript in this case. Part I of this dissent deals with the bill of particulars; part II, with the Starks hearing transcript.

I

Concerning the bill of particulars, defendant-appellee Catania contends: (A) this court has no jurisdiction to decide whether the bill of particulars should be unsealed; and (B) if we have jurisdiction, the media’s contention that the bill of particulars should be unsealed is without merit.

A

Catania raises two arguments that we lack jurisdiction over the bill of…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Gannett Co. v. DePasqualeSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Wiegand v. WiegandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. United States v. CianfraniCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  5. In Re Application of National Broadcasting Company, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and Cbs, IncCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981

13 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