Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Moose

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 22, 1992No. 126 M.D. 1990PublishedCited by 97 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

CAPPY, Justice.

The principal question we are called upon to decide is whether statements surreptitiously obtained by a jailhouse informant from appellee awaiting trial violated appellee’s Sixth Amendment rights when admitted against him in that trial, where the informant was acting pursuant to “an implied understanding” with the district attorney. For the reasons that follow, we hold that appellee’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated, that such statements should not have been admitted, and that a new trial is required.

The gravamen of appellee Moose’s complaint is that…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Napue v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

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

3Cited by97 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Abu-JamalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Commonwealth v. MoralesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Commonwealth v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Commonwealth v. BurkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Commonwealth v. CopenheferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

92 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