Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 4/1/1999

Commonwealth v. Holland

Citations

727 A.2d 563
556 Pa. 175
1999 Pa. LEXIS 1014

How courts have described this case

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

“where there is a high risk that instructions could be understood as requiring unanimity as to mitigating circumstances, the sentence must be vacated”
“[b]y not specifically tying his argument to one particular [mitigating factor], counsel encouraged a greater range of favorable responses ...”
counsel not ineffective for failing to call mental health expert at penalty phase, where forensic psychiatrist's reports and previous pre-sentence reports indicated appellant did not suffer from major mental illness
counsel not ineffective for failing to call mental health expert at penalty phase, where forensic psychiatrist’s reports and previous pre-sentence reports indicated appellant did not suffer from major mental illness
counsel not ineffective for failing to call mental health expert at penalty phase, where forensic psychiatrist's reports and previous pre-sentence reports indicated appellant did not suffer from major mental illness
counsel not ineffective for failing to call mental health expert at penalty phase, where forensic psychiatrist’s reports and previous pre-sentence reports indicated appellant did not suffer from major mental illness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 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.