Commonwealth v. Frank
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Baldrige, P. J.,
The defendant, Joseph Frank, was indicted, charged with the operation of a lottery. The only witnesses called by the commonwealth to prove the alleged criminal offense were James Lee Hill and Martin Wellman. The commonwealth admitted that Hill was under indictment and in its side-bar offer stated that it expected to be able to prove that these two men and defendant were associated together in the operation of a lottery. Both witnesses refused to testify, claiming the protection of their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The commonwealth contended…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Brown v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- United States v. MoniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Arndstein v. McCarthySupreme Court of the United States · 1920
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SwinehartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Master v. BaldiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Commonwealth v. FoxSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Commonwealth v. GomoriSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Commonwealth v. BristowSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.