Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Anderson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 3, 2011Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

OLSON, J.:

I respectfully dissent from the learned Majority’s holding that prosecutorial misconduct occurring after remand for a new trial but before the new trial can serve to bar the new trial under the double jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Majority at 840. I believe that in adopting this holding the Majority improperly broadens the scope of Pennsylvania’s double jeopardy clause beyond that which was intended by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177, 615 A.2d 321 (1992) and Commonwealth v. Martorano, 559 Pa. 533, 741 A.2d 1221…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. United States v. DinitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Serfass v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Lee v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Commonwealth v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

15 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