Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Szekeresh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 23, 1986No. 1345PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge:

We are asked to determine whether we should extend the rule of law promulgated in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), which grants a defendant a new trial after he has shown that he has suffered actual harm and actual prejudice arising from a conflict of interest in his representation following a pre-trial colloquy and subsequent waiver of his Sixth Amendment rights. Appellant, Michael J. Szekeresh, asks us to extend this rule to include the situation where the pre-trial colloquy informs the defendant of the specific risk of forfeiture of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Commonwealth v. ColemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Commonwealth v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Commonwealth v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RogalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Commonwealth v. MacKSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. In the Interest of SaladinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Commonwealth v. VegaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Tarnopolski v. COM, DEPT. OF TRANSP.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

7 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