Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Pugh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 7, 2014PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

PANELLA, J.

The primary issue before us is the admissibility of expert testimony proffered by the defense in order to question the trustworthiness of a defendant’s confession. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion in limine to preclude the defense from presenting such evidence. In light of recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law, we conclude that expert testimony regarding false confessions is impermissible as it provides no pedagogical purpose and interferes with the jury’s exclusive duty to assess the credibility of witnesses. We also find Pugh’s other issues merit…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  3. Commonwealth v. KoehlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Commonwealth v. SeeseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Commonwealth v. DunkleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Commonwealth v. RichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Com. v. James, G.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  4. Com. v. Bidwell, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  5. Com. v. Cabrera-Gutierrez, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019

17 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