Commonwealth v. Tolbert
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentJacobs, Judge
The only issue raised on appeal is whether a new trial is required because defense counsel was ineffective by waiving appellant’s right to be present at the selection of the jury and then proceeding to select a jury in appellant’s absence. This Court has already ruled that under such circumstances counsel must be considered ineffective. Commonwealth v. Graves, 238 Pa.Super. 452, 356 A.2d 813 (1976). Because I dissented from the Graves *27decision and still do not agree with its reasoning, I have written the following dissent in the present case.
Appellant argues that counsel’s waiver of…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. MaroneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- United States v. Willie Decoster, Jr.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
- Commonwealth v. TwiggsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Susser v. Carvel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.