Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 9/26/2002

Commonwealth v. Chambers

Citations

807 A.2d 872
570 Pa. 3
2002 Pa. LEXIS 2013

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (citation omitted)
explaining that Brady held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
new penalty hearing where trial counsel unreasonably failed to object to confusing jury instruction concerning mitigating circumstances
“[A] showing of good cause [for post-conviction relief discovery] requires more than just a generic demand for potentially exculpatory evidence . . . .”
confusion resulted since jury could have believed, based on the instruction, that all members of the jury had to find a mitigating circumstance before weighing against the aggravators could begin
“[A] showing of good cause [for post-conviction relief discovery] requires more than just a generic demand for potentially exculpatory evidence ....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.