Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Terebieniec

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 10, 1979No. 1788PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he did not withdraw from the alleged conspiracy; 2) his arraignment on closed circuit television violated his constitutional rights to a fair arraignment and a fair trial; 3) amendment of the indictment against him to include the name of a coconspirator was improper and prejudicial; 4) the suppression court erred in failing to suppress an inculpatory statement allegedly the product of unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment; and 5) the suppression court erred in failing to suppress the statement…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Sheppard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Davis v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Commonwealth v. StanleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. David Valenzuela-Gonzalez v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, United States of America, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. State v. PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. People v. LindseyIllinois Supreme Court · 2002

14 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