Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Rasheed

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 27, 1990No. 01270Published

1Dissent

CIRILLO, President Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I believe that Rasheed has waived the issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error by charging the jury, over the objection of defense *309counsel, that he did not have to testify and that no unfavorable inference should be drawn against him for failing to testify.1

A review of the record reveals the following: Attorney Mark Goodman, counsel for Rasheed, did not make any request on the record regarding the jury charge prior to the time that the trial court gave the charge. However, after the Honorable Charles Klein charged…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kurtas v. KurtasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Commonwealth v. HewettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Commonwealth v. SheaffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Commonwealth v. MarkovitchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Commonwealth v. MistrettaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API