Commonwealth v. Banks

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, to establish a violation of his or her right to compulsory process, “the defendant must make some plausible showing of how the witnesses’ testimony would have been both material and favorable to the defense” (citation and some formatting omitted)
• stating that a “trial court’s ruling on transporting witnesses is abuse of discretion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
  Supreme Court· 1982-07-02· cited 1,404×
• Commonwealth v. Hunt
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-09-10· cited 227×
• Com. v. Jones
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-05-02· cited 55×
• Commonwealth v. Sullivan
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1979-03-14· cited 37×
• Commonwealth v. Lahoud
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-02-01· cited 24×
• Commonwealth v. McKenzie
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-10-24· cited 11×
• Commonwealth v. Terry
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-10-20· cited 6×