Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 7/24/2008

Commonwealth v. Cook

Citations

952 A.2d 594
597 Pa. 572
2008 Pa. LEXIS 1181

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that, to fulfill its obligation to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection under Batson, the prosecution’s explanation must be “clear and reasonably specific.”
recognizing that, to fulfill its obligation to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection under Batson, the prosecution's explanation must be \clear and reasonably specific\
holding that exclusion of out of court statements made by unrelated party was proper when statements were irrelevant in finding whether discriminatory intent existed
stating that the represents a finding of fact that is accorded great deference on appeal and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous
stating that the trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact that is accorded great deference on appeal and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous
suggesting we are not bound by PCRA court’s findings of fact where such are not supported by the record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baer, Castille, Eakin, Greenspan, McCAFFERY, Saylor, Todd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

79 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.