Commonwealth v. Spotz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
SINGLE JUSTICE OPINION ON POST-DECISIONAL MOTIONS
Chief Justice CASTILLE.
I. Introduction
The central ancillary motion pending here asks that I withdraw my Concurring Opinion because I commented on the conduct and agenda of appellant’s counsel, who are affiliated with the Philadelphia-based Federal Community Defender’s Office (“FCDO”). I began my concurrence by noting that the source of the FCDO’s funding for its questionable forays into state court capital proceedings was not clear, though it appeared that the Administrative Office of Federal Courts (hereinafter “AO”) played a central role, and…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Cullen v. PinholsterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, M., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Commonwealth v. Davido, T., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Com. v. Berger, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Com. v. Howard, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Com. v. Moyer, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.