Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 6/22/1971
Commonwealth v. Carter
Citations
- 219 Pa. Super. 280
- 281 A.2d 75
- 1971 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1373
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “a defendant’s presence is required only where there is a reasonable substantial relation to the fullness of the opportunity to defend the charge”
- no due process violation where defendant not present when alternate juror substituted as a qualified replacement juror
- no due process violation where defendant not present when alternate juror substituted as a qualified replacement juror
- adopting the Snyder “fullness of the opportunity” test
- adopting the Snyder \fullness of the opportunity\ test
- adopting the Snyder “fullness of the opportunity” test
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Weight, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Ceroone
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. TharpSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-09-24· cited 187×
- Commonwealth v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-11-26· cited 46×
- Commonwealth v. McGonigleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-06-21· cited 28×
- Commonwealth v. CruzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-11-16· cited 27×
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-10-29· cited 24×
- Commonwealth v. McLaurinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-11-20· cited 23×
- Grooms v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 1980-02-06· cited 15×
- Commonwealth v. DeMarcoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-09-19· cited 15×
- State v. JonesNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1974-10-22· cited 15×
- Commonwealth v. McNamaraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-07-07· cited 12×
- Commonwealth v. GrossSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-11-30· cited 7×
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1934-01-08· cited 2,822×
- Richard E. Loux and Neil Conrad Wallen v. United States of America, Vertis James Barrett, Arthur St. Peter Andharold Oscar Thomas v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1968-02-16· cited 175×
- Commonwealth v. CarterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1967-09-26· cited 146×
- People v. IsbyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1947-11-18· cited 133×
- Odell v. HudspethTenth Circuit· 1951-06-12· cited 106×
- People v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court· 1956-11-23· cited 105×
- People v. MedcoffMichigan Supreme Court· 1955-12-01· cited 69×
- United States v. John J. Houlihan and Martin LegereSecond Circuit· 1964-05-19· cited 68×
- Theodore Way v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1960-12-27· cited 42×
- United States v. Sam GarafoloSeventh Circuit· 1968-01-29· cited 36×
- Blaine v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1943-06-22· cited 28×
- United States v. John SimonettiSecond Circuit· 1964-01-13· cited 19×
- McCoy v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1965-05-14· cited 14×
- United States ex rel. O'Halloran v. RundleE.D. Pennsylvania· 1967-03-27· cited 8×
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.