Bennett v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that admitting evidence of a defendant’s prior statement to an investigator, proffered by the Commonwealth, did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights by “forcing]” him to testify to dispute it
• holding the trial court did not err in refusing to permit use of photographs of the victim during voir dire where the photographs had not been admitted into evidence and the trial court permitted an oral description of the murder scene
• “No doubt continuances in the midst of trial should not be an everyday occurrence. Nevertheless, such decisions are entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
• “No doubt continuances in the midst of trial should not be an everyday occurrence. Nevertheless, such decisions are entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
• “[I]t is not desirable for the Commonwealth’s Attorney to testify as a witness on a material point in a case. The circumstances are rare indeed where any lawyer may properly testify in a case in which he is participating as an advocate.”
• considering the prejudicial value of an untimely disclosed statement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).