Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Brown

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 26, 2007No. 1 EAP 2005PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice CASTILLE.

In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant “is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his nontestifying codefendant’s confession naming him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 201-02, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1704, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (summarizing holding of Bruton). Bruton exists as a “narrow exception” to the general rule…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Richardson v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Frazier v. CuppSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Gray v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Commonwealth v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RoneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Commonwealth v. FreemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Commonwealth v. VandivnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Commonwealth v. CannonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Terry Brown v. Superintendent Greene SCICourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016

33 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