Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Brown

Citations

  • 134 A.3d 1097
  • 2016 Pa. Super. 38
  • 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 103
  • 2016 WL 638829

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that a new trial was not warranted where the evidence concerning Detective Pitts did not relate to the case at bar
  • holding new trial not warranted where evidence offered against Detective Pitts was not specific to case at bar
  • stating that “allegations in a newspaper article do not constitute evidence….” (quotation marks omitted)
  • explaining that allegations of Detective Pitts' use of coercive tactics in other murder cases did not warrant a new trial where none of the proffered witnesses would provide any new evidence in Brown's case
  • “Appellant failed to preserve this claim for appeal as he did not object to the prosecutor’s statement at trial and raises this argument for the first time on - 14 - J-S45013-23 appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lazarus, Ott, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.